本文主要采用深度访谈的研究方法，从“相互联系的生活观”的理论视角出发，探讨了雇主与家政工关系的建构和互动。研究发现，把雇主与家政工的关系比喻成一条光谱的话，那么两端分别是两种理想类型，处在一端的是类家人的关系，另一端的是完全的理性雇佣关系，而大部分的雇主与家政工都处于光谱的中间段，即处于理性雇佣关系与类家人关系之间。
类家人关系中双方遵循的是家庭关系的互动逻辑，家政工被纳入家庭的亲密圈，二者的内外边界被消解，家政工像家人一般操持着家庭事务，与家庭成员之间产生了强烈的情感依赖，双方像家人一样彼此关心互相支撑。理性雇佣关系遵循的是市场的逻辑，雇主将家庭构建为家政工工作的场所，像管理员工一样去管理家政工，避免和家政工有任何除工作以外的交流，拒绝家政工侵扰家庭的私人空间。
处于光谱之间的雇主与家政工的关系是大量的、普遍的。家政服务融于雇主家庭的日常生活中，家政工在在雇主家庭中既是“类家人”的关系，承担着重要的家庭照料责任，与雇主在日常的相处中发展出类似家人的亲密情感和道德责任；家政工又是“被雇佣者”，与雇主之间存在着利益冲突的内在矛盾；因此，双方往往处于“家庭关系”和“雇佣关系”的内在张力之中，不断挑战与确认彼此的角色、地位与界线，形成了复杂多样且不断变动的关系。
家政工的进入给雇主家庭带来了诸多挑战。首先是雇主与家政工之间的权力关系的博弈，雇主并不是一直处于“强势”的位置，雇主依赖家政工实现家庭生活的日常运转，家政工通过自身的付出的劳动和专业技能获得了在家庭事务上的决策权和话语权；在有关家政工的工作状况上，家政工可以通过市场上的自由流动来获得与雇主的议价权，以此谋求更好的工作待遇。这背后有几个重要的原因：目前家政市场总体上出于供不应求的状况，尤其存在着优质照料供给的不足，家政工总体而言比较容易找到工作，可以通过“用脚投票”对雇主造成制衡；更因为家政服务具有高度情感性、私人化特质的特殊性，对于雇主来说，更换家政工的成本是更大的，从而一定程度上愿意向家政工妥协。
当家政工进入到家庭，会对家庭的“日常”面向和“精神”面向造成挑战：作为实际居所的家庭和作为私人领域的家被割裂，并受到家政工带来潜在风险的威胁，家庭的氛围也会因为家政工的进入遭到破坏。为此，雇主会重构家庭作为“私人生活”的边界，划分出雇主与家政工各种有形无形的界线，比如发展出阶层化的母职劳动分工。偏向类家人关系和偏向理性雇佣关系中雇主的边界底线存在不同。在偏向理性雇佣关系的家庭中，雇主更多希望家政工做好本职工作，不对家庭生活产生过多的侵扰；而在偏向类家人关系中，雇主希望家政工对“对家庭操心”、“对孩子上心”，因此会容忍家政工在边界方面上一定程度的“模糊不清”。需要指出的是，二者边界的确立并不是只雇主方决定的，是与家政工互动的结果，受制于家政工的态度与行为。正因如此，在一些家庭里，雇主与家政工能够达成共识确立边界，而另一些家庭这样的共识难以达成。

This article mainly adopts the research method of in-depth interviews, and discusses the construction and interaction of the relationship between employers and domestic workers from the theoretical perspective of the “connected life”. The study found that if the relationship between employers and domestic workers is compared to a spectrum, then there are two ideal types at the two ends, family-like relationships at one end, and completely rational employment relationships at the other end. Both employers and domestic workers are in the middle of the spectrum, that is, the relationship between employers and domestic workers is between rational employment relationships and family-like relationships.
The relationship between employers and domestic workers in the spectrum is numerous and common. Domestic service is integrated into the daily life of the employer’s family. The domestic worker is a “family-like” relationship in the employer’s family, and bears important family care responsibilities, and develops family-like intimacy and morality in daily dealings with the employer. Responsibilities; domestic workers are also “employees”, and there is an inherent conflict of interest between them and their employers; therefore, both parties are often in the inherent tension of “family relationship” and “employment relationship”, constantly challenging and confirming each other’s Roles, status and boundaries form a complex, diverse and constantly changing relationship.
The relationship between employers and domestic workers in the spectrum is numerous and common. Domestic service is integrated into the daily life of the employer’s family. The domestic worker is a “family-like” relationship in the employer’s family, and bears important family care responsibilities. In daily dealings with the employer, he develops family-like intimacy and morality. Responsibilities; domestic workers are also “employees”, and there is an inherent conflict of interest between them and their employers; therefore, both parties are often in the inherent tension of “family relationship” and “employment relationship”, constantly challenging and confirming each other’s Roles, status and boundaries form a complex, diverse and constantly changing relationship.
The entry of domestic workers has brought many challenges to employers’ families. The first is the game of power relations between employers and domestic workers. Employers are not always in a “strong” position. Employers rely on domestic workers to realize the daily operation of family life. Domestic workers have gained insights through their own labor and professional skills. Decision-making power and right to speak in family affairs; in terms of the working conditions of domestic workers, domestic workers can obtain bargaining power with employers through free movement in the market to seek better work treatment. There are several important reasons behind this: the current domestic market is generally in short supply, and there is especially a shortage of high-quality care supply. Domestic workers generally find it easier to find a job, and they can check and balance employers by “voting with their feet”. ;Because of the particularity of domestic service with high emotional and personal characteristics, for employers, the cost of replacing domestic workers is greater, so they are willing to compromise with domestic workers to a certain extent.
When a domestic worker enters the family, it will challenge the “daily” and “spiritual” aspects of the family: the family as the actual residence is separated from the home as the private sector, and is threatened by potential risks brought by the domestic worker, the family atmosphere It will also be destroyed by the entry of domestic workers. To this end, employers will reconstruct the boundaries of the family as a “private life” and divide various tangible and intangible boundaries between employers and domestic workers, such as the development of a stratified division of labor between mothers and workers. There is a difference in the bottom line of the employer’s boundary between favoring family relationships and favoring rational employment relationships. In families that favor rational employment relationships, employers expect more domestic workers to do their jobs and do not cause too much intrusion into family life; while in favor of family relationships, employers hope that domestic workers will be more concerned about “care about the family” and “right to the family”. “Children’s heart”, so they will tolerate a certain degree of “ambiguity” in the boundary of domestic workers. It should be pointed out that the establishment of the boundary between the two is not only determined by the employer, but is the result of interaction with the domestic worker, and is subject to the attitude and behavior of the domestic worker. Because of this, in some families, employers and domestic workers can reach a consensus to establish a boundary, while in other families it is difficult to reach such a consensus.