South Korea's Foreign Caregiver Pilot Faces Low Pay, High Fees and an Uncertain Future

Workers Take Home 1.18 Million Won as Families Pay Far More

Foreign caregivers in Seoul reported average monthly earnings of 1.92 million won during the first six months of South Korea's domestic worker pilot, falling to 1.18 million won after housing and insurance deductions. Some also said they were asked to care for pets, wash dishes for entire families and teach children English, duties beyond their understanding of their jobs.

The findings come from a study led by Professor Lee Mi-ae of Jeju National University and published in the Korea Association for Immigration Policy and Administration journal. Its survey covered 21 Filipino housekeepers and two translators involved in the program, which the Seoul Metropolitan Government launched in September 2024.

The pilot began with 100 workers, mostly from Southeast Asia, to serve more than 150 Seoul households. Its initial phase concluded in December. The aim was to fill a shortage of local domestic workers and help South Korean women stay in employment by reducing the demands of childcare and housework.

By January 22, 2026, the experiment faced unresolved problems on both sides of that arrangement. Workers described financial hardship and expanding duties, while families faced service fees of 16,800 won an hour. Plans for a lasting program had stalled amid concerns over affordability, employment protections and a change in national leadership.

Seoul officials continued to argue that families needed the service. Labor groups called for a pause and a full review, while the workers already in South Korea faced uncertainty about what would happen after employment permits extended through early 2026.

What the Wage Survey Found

Professor Lee's study placed the workers' reported earnings alongside average monthly pay of 3.74 million won for South Koreans in 2024. The foreign workers' average of 1.92 million won was just over half that figure before deductions. Their take home pay of 1.18 million won was less than one third of it.

Housing expenses and insurance payments reduced the reported monthly amount by 740,000 won. That is about 39 percent of the workers' earnings before those deductions, leaving substantially less money for daily needs and remittances to families abroad.

Seoul's high living costs made the remaining income difficult to stretch. The survey described financial hardship among workers in one of Asia's most expensive cities, even though the program's wage arrangements were intended to meet the legal minimum.

The gap between a family's service bill and a caregiver's income helps explain the dispute. Households paid for an agency managed service that included insurance and other mandatory costs. Workers then faced housing and insurance deductions from their own earnings. A high price for the customer therefore coexisted with low take home pay for the person providing care.

Professor Lee argued that better conditions required a broader reassessment of the work itself. She called for recognition of the economic value of housekeeping and childcare, connecting the quality of those services to the quality of the jobs behind them.

We must re-evaluate the value of child care, recognize the economic value of housekeeping labour, and foster a virtuous cycle of providing high quality housekeeping services and jobs.

Why Seoul Brought in Foreign Caregivers

South Korea introduced the pilot against the backdrop of the world's lowest birth rate, which the program's demographic account put at 0.78 in 2023. The government viewed the burden of housework and childcare as a major reason young women hesitated to have children or struggled to remain in employment.

The intended users included married couples in their 20s to 40s with two incomes, households with one parent and families with several children. According to the Prime Minister's office, easing domestic responsibilities was meant to support family formation and help mothers continue their careers.

Seoul Mayor Oh Se-hoon championed the initiative, describing South Korea as facing the warning light of population extinction. He pointed to Singapore and Hong Kong, where foreign domestic helpers are a familiar part of urban life. His argument was that such arrangements had helped slow declining fertility, even though they had not reversed it.

The Korean pilot brought in trained caregivers from the Philippines and used certified agencies, close monitoring and a limited initial rollout. Those arrangements were intended to avoid problems experienced elsewhere while testing whether foreign workers could meet demand for domestic support.

Lee Joo-hee, a sociology professor at Ewha Womans University, challenged the idea that importing workers would solve the demographic problem. She argued that policy should focus on improving domestic employment conditions. A substantial pool of middle aged Korean women could do this work, she said, if jobs provided full time hours and benefits.

The disagreement concerned the kind of labor shortage the government was trying to address. Seoul sought additional workers from abroad, while critics argued that better jobs could attract people already living in South Korea. The pilot's difficulties brought wages, hours and benefits into the same debate as childcare availability.

Caregiving or General Housekeeping?

The Filipino participants generally understood themselves to be professional caregivers, not maids responsible for every household task. Many held caregiver licenses and had received training. Their expectations centered on caring for children or expectant mothers, with household chores connected to that care.

Before arriving, participants including Mary and Belle described a limited role. Washing a baby's bottles or cleaning a play area fitted their understanding of caregiving. Taking out general household rubbish, cooking for adults or organizing the entire home did not.

A participant explaining that understanding before arrival described caregiving as the main responsibility and household chores as assistance linked to it.

My main job is caregiving, and I understand that I will only assist with household chores related to caregiving when necessary.

The survey found that household expectations sometimes went further. Workers reported washing dishes for the whole family, caring for pets and tutoring children in English. Each additional responsibility placed demands on time, energy or skills beyond the caregiving role they expected.

The Ministry of Employment and Labor's initial guidelines described childcare and light housework without setting out clear boundaries. That left room for families and workers to understand the same job differently. A request that an employer considered ordinary help could become another duty for a worker already responsible for a child.

Workers were selected for English and Korean proficiency, but language skills did not remove differences in household expectations or cultural understanding. Some felt pressure to accept extra tasks to maintain good relations, with concern about repercussions or losing their jobs making refusal difficult.

The problem resembled disputes in other places employing large numbers of foreign domestic workers. When job descriptions are loosely enforced, someone recruited for professional caregiving can gradually become responsible for general housekeeping as well. That change reduces the recognition given to the worker's training and makes the original agreement harder to maintain.

Why Families Also Found the Service Expensive

The service initially cost 13,940 won an hour, including minimum wages, insurance and other mandatory expenses. By 2025, the hourly rate had risen to 16,800 won. A household using 40 hours of care each week faced a monthly bill of approximately 2.92 million won.

Average income for a household of four was about 5.04 million won a month. Against that figure, the stated monthly care bill represented roughly 58 percent of household income. The comparison helps explain why a service intended to support working parents remained difficult for many families to afford.

South Korea's commitments under international labor agreements require equal minimum wage rights for foreign workers. Those protections contributed to the service cost and limited the possibility of making the program cheaper simply by paying migrants less.

City data showed that 43 percent of applications came from Gangnam, Seocho and Songpa, three of Seoul's wealthiest districts. The concentration suggested that access was weighted toward affluent households rather than spread broadly among families balancing jobs and childcare.

Critics consequently described the program as functioning as a subsidy for wealthy families, weakening its goal of supporting the wider population of working parents. Families in the middle of the income range faced the same need for help but a substantial obstacle in the price.

Residents and politicians also questioned the value of recruiting overseas when the cost approached that of hiring locally. Some residents preferred a Korean worker at a similar price because of shared language and cultural expectations. Others argued that high fees defeated the purpose of bringing in foreign labor.

The agencies, insurance arrangements and accommodation costs absorbed a substantial part of the money associated with the service. Families therefore paid a considerable bill while workers received much less. The dispute over intermediaries concerned whether the current management structure could provide both affordable care and adequate earnings.

Curfews, Wage Payments and Worker Autonomy

The workers initially lived in shared accommodation under a 10pm curfew that restricted their ability to leave at night. Labor advocates and workers criticized the restriction, arguing that adult employees should be able to decide how to spend their own time outside work.

Two domestic workers subsequently went missing and were later found in another city. Following feedback and the incident, the Seoul Metropolitan Government lifted the curfew in late 2024.

Authorities also changed the payment arrangements so workers could receive wages twice a month instead of once. More frequent payments gave them better access to cash between paydays, particularly when sending money home.

The Korean pilot housed workers separately from their employers. Living outside the household where they worked provided a boundary between employment and private life, an important protection in a job performed inside someone else's home.

Shiela Tebia-Bonifacio, a Filipina activist in Hong Kong, warned South Korea about the dangers of adopting the Hong Kong model, where foreign domestic workers must live with their employers. She cautioned that such arrangements could lead to modern slavery because workers could remain exposed to exploitation without an escape from the workplace.

Her warning connected housing policy with working conditions. Separate accommodation gave the Seoul workers somewhere to go after their duties ended, while the curfew dispute showed that restrictions could still follow them into their time away from work.

Exploitation Allegations and Calls for a Review

Two workers were deported after leaving their posts. They alleged severe exploitation, including excessive working hours, and there were allegations that authorities had refused to address complaints. The Ministry of Employment and Labor denied the exploitation claims.

The allegations intensified demands for stronger oversight. They added to concerns about whether workers could raise problems, enforce the limits of their duties and obtain help when arrangements broke down.

Labor groups, including the Korea Confederation of Trade Unions, called for the program to be paused and fully reviewed. Their concerns included delayed wages, unclear job descriptions and insufficient oversight.

The changes to curfews and payment frequency addressed particular complaints. The wider dispute concerned the everyday operation of the service: what workers could be asked to do, how many hours they worked, how wages reached them and how complaints were handled.

Certified agencies and government monitoring had been central to the pilot's design. The continuing complaints showed that those arrangements still faced practical difficulties in regulating work carried out across private homes.

Political Change Leaves Expansion in Doubt

The initiative gained support under former president Yoon Suk Yeol. His removal from office in April 2025 and the arrival of President Lee Jae-myung in June changed its political setting. Lee's Democratic Party had consistently raised concerns about the program.

The Ministry of Employment and Labor had pledged to finalize a lasting version by the middle of 2025, but no concrete plan had been put forward by January 22, 2026. Vice Labor Minister Kim Min-seok said in June that expanding beyond the pilot would not be easy.

The central government appeared reluctant to approve a nationwide rollout while questions about service costs and worker protection remained unresolved. Seoul officials continued pressing for expansion, creating a divide between the city's demand for more caregivers and the national government's caution.

The number of participating workers fell from 100 to 89 by March 2025 because of unapproved absences and voluntary departures. That was a reduction of 11 workers, or 11 percent of the original group.

About 500 households were on a waiting list, yet recruitment of replacements and decisions on renewing the initial cohort's contracts had stalled. Families waiting for care and workers already providing it therefore faced uncertainty for different reasons.

Mayor Oh said about 95 percent of service users and more than 70 percent of workers were satisfied. Those figures supported Seoul's case for continuing the program. Seoul City Council member Ai Su Luu took the opposite position, calling it a policy failure and seeking its withdrawal during a recent council session.

How the Pilot Reached This Point

The program's difficulties developed across recruitment, daily employment arrangements and national politics. Several changes followed complaints, but the proposed move from a small pilot to a lasting service remained undecided.

• September 2024: Seoul launched the pilot with 100 workers, mostly from Southeast Asia, serving more than 150 households.
• Late 2024: Seoul lifted the 10pm accommodation curfew following feedback and the disappearance of two workers who were later found in another city.
• December: The initial phase of the pilot concluded.
• March 2025: The participating workforce had fallen to 89 through unapproved absences and voluntary departures.
• April 2025: Yoon Suk Yeol was removed from office.
• June 2025: Lee Jae-myung assumed the presidency, and Vice Labor Minister Kim Min-seok said expansion beyond the pilot would be difficult.
• January 22, 2026: No concrete lasting program had been announced, while existing employment permits extended through early 2026.

The workers already in South Korea were expected to stay under those permit extensions. Labor ministry officials indicated that, if the caregiving program ended, participants might be reassigned to service jobs in hotels or restaurants. Such a move would keep them in a different kind of employment while removing their role in supporting household care.

No clear decision or next announcement date had been given for expansion, new recruitment or the program's longer future. Seoul's waiting list, the workers' permit extensions and the possibility of reassignment left the immediate arrangement operating without an agreed lasting direction.

What the Dispute Means for Families and Workers

Seoul's pilot brought together two needs that its current design struggled to reconcile. Families wanted dependable care at a manageable price. Workers needed adequate income, defined responsibilities and control over their lives outside working hours.

The survey's wage figures and accounts of additional duties explain why worker protections became central to the debate. The service fees and the concentration of applications in wealthy districts explain why affordability became just as contentious.

South Korea's effort to support mothers in employment and respond to demographic decline therefore depended on decisions extending beyond recruitment. Pay arrangements, agency costs, job definitions and complaint handling all affected whether the service could work for those receiving care and those providing it.

The argument continued over whether the pilot could become a useful measure for family support and greater equality between women and men, or whether it risked creating another route to labor exploitation. As of January 22, 2026, Seoul favored continuation, labor groups sought a review, and the national government had yet to settle the program's future.

The Bottom Line

• A study involving 21 Filipino housekeepers and two translators found average monthly earnings of 1.92 million won, falling to 1.18 million won after housing and insurance deductions.
• Workers reported duties beyond their expected caregiving role, including pet care, English tutoring and washing dishes for entire families.
• The hourly service fee rose from 13,940 won to 16,800 won, with approximately 2.92 million won a month charged for 40 hours a week.
• Gangnam, Seocho and Songpa accounted for 43 percent of applications, pointing to access concentrated among wealthier households.
• Seoul removed a 10pm curfew and allowed wages to be paid twice a month, while labor groups continued seeking a full review.
• The workforce fell from 100 to 89 by March 2025, despite a waiting list of about 500 households.
• Existing employment permits extended through early 2026, but expansion and a lasting program remained undecided on January 22, 2026.