On Tuesday, July 23, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government moved two bills in Lok Sabha apparently to “reduce the compliance and administration ‘burden’ emanating from multiple legislations.”Some government-‘supportive’ media websites define these as “integration of labour regulations, minimise anomalies of contradictions thereby reducing litigation interpretation of statutes.”

While the Code on Wages 2019 (WC) seeks to combine four laws covering minimum wages, payment of wages, bonus and equal remuneration, the Occupational Health, Safety and Working Conditions Code 2019 combines 13 laws which include the Factories Act, the Contract Labour Act, the Interstate Migrant Workmen Act and specific laws covering beedi workers, cinema workers, journalists, construction workers, dock workers, plantation workers and motor transport workers, sales promotion employees and others.

The intent and objective of the WC bill says that this will lead to facilitation for ease of compliance of labour laws will promote setting up of more enterprises. The vocal discussion around the WC attempts to make it look like technology used in its enforcement will reduce violations, however, the bill’s use of technology appears actually be only to transform the entire system of labour inspection.

Besides, the long standing demand of established trade unions, to make the non-payment of minimum wages and such other basic violation of human rights cognisable offences, have been ignored. Worse, the bill has increased minimum wage by a laughable Rs. 2.

Now, apart from the definition of employee and worker running into each other, there is a creation of an additional authority- appellate authority. The appellate authority has been given all the powers of a civil court under the Civil Procedure, 1908, for the purpose of “taking evidence and of enforcing the attendance of witnesses and compelling the production of documents, and every such authority or appellate authority shall be deemed to be a civil court for all the purposes of section 195 and Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.” This appears to open up a murky terrain as it’s yet unclear how this authority will function. Moreover, matters or grievances that could earlier under the law, be taken to courts of law, with independent functioning and well-tested procedures, will be taken to an “authority”, which, in all possibilities, may not either function independently or take real or effective steps to address issues.

There appears legitimisation of the contractor and contract labour. By diluting or taking away the role or responsibility of the principal employer for the payment of wages and other benefits, including bonus, there is a legitimisation of the contractor.While defining “contract labour” the WC says that it means a worker who shall be deemed to be employed in or in connection with the work of an establishment when he is hired in or in connection with such work by or through a contractor, “with or without the knowledge of the principal employer”. The “with or without principal employer” aspect gains importance here, because in effect it means the principal employer isn’t responsible for the labour that is hired in their organisation or industry if it is sub-contracted out .

The introduction of combined labour contract licenses for all tasks in an establishment removesthe possibility of identifying for contract license, a perennial task from a non-perennial task. This takes away from core principles of Contract Labour Act and will provide employers a legal cover to hire contract workers in a perennial and core tasks.

On similar lines, the amendment of motor vehicle act provides no safety but makes provisions for large companies to enter. There are excessive penalties on the driver. Role of conductor has been omitted.

Reactions to this move by the Modi 2.0 government have been sharp.

Ashok Singh, Vice President of Indian National Trade Union Congress (INTUC) said, “To ‘reform’ the labour laws, labour itself hasn’t been consulted. It’s pro-capital. Public sector is being privatised and poor are being pushed out of things.”

The WC bill also is conspicuously silent on gender related issues. It doesn’t contain any provisions to protect workers against discrimination. It’s a violation of constitutional provisions of equality of opportunities and international standards and guidelines such as the ILO Convention on Discrimination (Employment and Occupation), 1958, ratified by India. A statement by Ajeevika bureau said, “Unlike Equal remuneration Act, 1976, it talks only of wage inequality but is blind to discrimination in recruitment, promotions, transfers and trainings.” It’s a well-known fact the people from marginalised backgrounds, especially backward castes, religious minorities and those from discriminated genders, have to bear the brunt of their background at each step of the employment cycle. Hence no explicit mention of these forms of discriminations leaves the room wide open for interpretation and work place harassment of marginalised people.

Vasudevan Nambiar from the New Trade Union Initiative (NTUI) said, “The WC combines existing laws into few codes. How does it arrive at that conclusion? The objective [of the bill] has been to facilitate more exploitation, provide cheap labour, hire and fire and more such cosmetic changes. The employers are free to do what they want just because they employed someone.”

On the aspect of accountability he said, “The system of supervision and inspection has been taken away.” In the WC, the aspect of inspection is being aided by a “facilitator”. The role of a facilitator is again, subject to actual circumstances and doesn’t strengthen a robust inspection process.

Nambiar added, “Because the employment itself is coming with an expiry date, the scope of unionisation has become very limited.”He added, “On the one hand they say “Make India great”, “Freedom for investment”, on the other they are rapidly enforcing these changes already at many places. These just remain words on paper with hardly any relief for workers.”

Similarly, the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act of 1955says the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947’s provisions apply to journalists. In case of retrenchment, however, lawyers state that the Working Journalists Act enhances the protections for journalists above and beyond the protections the Industrial Disputes Act offers to workers in other sectors. 

While the Industrial Disputes Act Section 25F gives only one month notice period in case of retrenchment of a workman, the current legal protections are that if one wishes to retrench a journalist, one has to give three months’ notice, and if the person is at the level of an editor, then one has to give six months’ notice. This, as per lawyers and experts, has been done to protect “free speech and the independence of journalists, insulating them from political pressure on media owners”. However, the Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Bill, 2019 which subsumed the Working Journalists Act, has omitted these provisions. What was required was that the friendly provisions of the 1955 Act should have been extended to digital media. Instead the new Bill disregards these provisions.

A statement released by left groups highlighted, “Contrary to the government claims, these codes would enhance the process of exclusion of workers from the benefits they accrue from the existing laws, by simply raising the threshold level of number of workers for application of these laws.”

The trade unions affiliated to left groups have also alleged that while determining the minimum wage, there was no participation from left groups. “The wage code has denied the agreed formula of wage calculation as per 15th Indian Labour conference, and add on 25% as directed by Supreme Court judgment in the Raptakos case and which was repeatedly and unanimously accepted by 45th and 46th ILC. The Expert Committee appointed by the Central Government, which excluded any participation from the Trade Unions, to determine the methodology to determine the National Minimum Wage also went against those recommendations. But to top it all the Labour Minister, on 10.07.2019 unilaterally announced the National Minimum Wage as Rs. 4628/-pm, when even the 7th CPC recommends Rs.18000/-pm as the minimum wages w.e.f. 1.01.2016.”

The statement also said that the Code on Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions bill will exclude 90 percent of the workforce, especially from the unorganised and informal sector, outsourced on contract out of the purview of the code.

“By repealing all these Acts and selectively picking up the provisions advantageous to employers only from these Acts for incorporation of the Code Bill and grossly diluting and/or tampering all the provisions pertaining to rights and protection of the workers in general, the Govt. seeks to drastically curtail the workers’ rights, in their most obedient services of their corporate masters.”

In a labour market where there is a diverse workforce, with specific needs of each sector, this seems like a move intended to benefit the market more than the labourers themselves.

More rigorous debate and discussion needs to take place on public platforms around these issues.
 

The post Labour ‘Reforms’ more for “Ease of doing Business” than labour rights appeared first on SabrangIndia.

India’s ranking among “competing” nations

Thus, the “Global Competitiveness Report 2017-18”, ranks India 98th in intensity of local competition among 137 countries it analyses, 124th in total tax rate, 131st in number of procedures to start business, 110th in time taken to start business, 124th in trade tariffs, 118th in imports as percentage of gross domestic product (GDP), 104th in flexibility of wage determination, 129th in female participation in labour force, 111th in exports as percentage of GDP, and so on.

The post India ranks 131st in procedures, 110th in time taken to start business among 137 countries: WEF report appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Global businesses and grassroots human rights activists may seem like strange bedfellows.  But as attacks on basic democratic freedoms and the rule of law intensify around the world, they may have more shared values and interests than one might think.

We know businesses are driven by the bottom line. If they didn’t seek to increase profits, they simply wouldn’t exist. But we also know—and many business leaders are coming around to the idea—that long-term success relies on more than just profit generation and is linked to a range of external factors such as transparency, certainty, stability. And a social license to operate.

Failures to understand that social license, and in particular to prevent and respond to the human rights impacts of their work, have thrust many global businesses into an unwanted spotlight. They didn’t need to find themselves there.

Because human rights defenders use public advocacy as a key tool for change, businesses often make the mistake of seeing them as additional drivers of cost. Reputational damage and operational risks for a company are expensive. Because human rights defenders—such as lawyers, trade unionists, community leaders, or NGO workers—use public advocacy as a key tool for change, businesses often make the mistake of seeing them as additional drivers of cost.

However, business should see human rights defenders as priceless allies. They are the canaries in the coalmines, pointing to when governance failures become real financial, legal, and reputational risks to business. They are also the witnesses to corporate abuse of communities and the environment.

Because of this, the work of defenders often makes those in power uncomfortable—both states and non-state actors. They are targeted with laws and policies to stifle their activities, and face intimidation and threats to their work and their lives.

Yet without the work of defenders, whole societies and economies lose out. And that means businesses lose out, too.

Take the case of the 24 April, 2013 Rana Plaza factory collapse in Bangladesh. When the dust cleared, the largest industrial accident in contemporary times resulted in the deaths of 1129 workers. Multinational brands who sourced from Bangladesh had long known the government had little capacity, and less will, to make important changes—hiring and training labor inspectors, updating fire codes and retrofitting buildings to meet them, and so on. They also knew local authorities and business partners had engaged in active suppression of labor unions and workers speaking out. By many accounts, if those voices had been heard, the tragic death toll would never have been so high.
 

Wikimedia Commons/Sharat Chowdhury (Some rights reserved)

The aftermath of the 2013 Rana Plaza factory collapse in Bangladesh.

For those defenders trying to address such concerns on the ground it is, in a very real sense, a matter of life and death. Just ask Laura Caceres, who spoke at this year’s UN Forum on Business and Human Rights to honor her mother. Berta Caceres was gunned down last March in Honduras for her work defending campesina communities against abuses linked to the Agua Zarca dam.

The global response to Rana Plaza kicked off a sustained effort by major trading partners—and home countries—the US and the EU, as well as the ILO, to improve coordination and adopt a structural approach to improving labor rights in Bangladesh. The multi-stakeholder Bangladesh Accord has workers and unions at the table and on equal footing with government and businesses to improve workplace safety and worker voice. Berta Caceres’ death led the Finnish state and Dutch pension fund FMO to divest from the project. It has also refocused the attention of states, development organizations and the UN to the ongoing harassment of defenders in Honduras.

These cases show business can make a difference. It has a unique ability to create, maintain, and defend space for civil society through three tools: leverage, leadership, and partnerships.

How do these work? Take as an example a government drafting a law that aims to close down space for NGOs to operate. In addition to running counter to international law, this would also close off channels for businesses to benefit from NGOs’ work—whether implementing community projects or helping train workers. So how might businesses respond?

They can use the leverage provided by access, personal relationships and market share to push back on authoritarian impulses. To take just one example, when 30 global brands and global trade unions joined together to speak out against violent dispersal of protests and detention of activists in Cambodia in 2014, not only were the activists released, but the underlying issues of minimum wage took center stage in brand discussions with the government.

Businesses, and especially progressive businesses, also need to show leadership. In 2015, Adidas released a policy statement on human rights defenders that clearly led the pack, creating a company-wide commitment to speak out in defense of fundamental freedoms in the countries where they source. It takes a lot for a business to get in front, especially when they know that NGOs will be watching carefully to see those policies implemented. But setting the bar high has consumer appeal and can drive a race to the top.

Finally, businesses have resources. Partnerships directly with NGOs can be contentious, and businesses need to listen to and address the concerns of co-optation and whitewashing. But the global environment for traditional funding mechanisms is increasingly toxic. According to UN experts and leading funders, nearly a hundred governments have put limits on NGOs’ operations, including the ability to accept foreign (especially NGO) funding. For the financial survival of civil society, seeking support from businesses might be an option—if it is on equal footing and with clear redlines to maintain independence.

Civil society needs space and protection to carry out its work, and it is not just a moral imperative, but an investment opportunity for businesses to help secure that space and protection. The leadership, leverage and solidarity shown by companies who see support to civic freedoms and human right defenders as part of core business will pay long-term dividends.

Sarah Brooks works for the Geneva-based NGO, the International Service for Human Rights. She leads their work in Asia, and also supports defenders seeking to advance corporate accountability.

This article was first appeared on Open Democracy
 

The post Business can and should ally with those defending human rights appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Image credit: Amit Dave/ Reuters

The post There will be a 60% drop in employment in micro, small-scale industries by March 2017: Study appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Image: The Hindu

‘डूइंग बिजनेस 2017’ नाम की रिपोर्ट को मंगलवार (25 अक्टूबर) को जारी किया गया। इसमें 190 देशों की लिस्ट में भारत 130वें स्थान पर है। इस लिस्ट में सबसे ऊपर सिंगापुर हुआ करता था लेकिन अब न्यूजीलैंड ने इसपर अपना कब्जा जमा लिया है। भारत सरकार अपनी रैंकिंग से काफी निराश है। सरकार की तरफ से जारी बयान में कहा गया कि उसने सुधार के लिए जो 12 कदम उठाए उनपर गौर नहीं किया गया।

लिस्ट में इस वक्त सिंगापुर दूसरे नंबर पर है। उसके बाद उसके बाद क्रमश: डेनमार्क, हांगकांग, दक्षिण कोरिया, नार्वे, ब्रिटेन, अमेरिका, स्वीडन तथा पूर्व यूगोस्लाव मैसिडोनिया गणराज्य का स्थान है। सूची में पाकिस्तान 144वें स्थान पर है।

भाषा की खबर के अनुसार, औद्योगिक नीति एवं संवर्द्धन विभाग के सचिव रमेश अभिषेक ने कहा कि दर्जन भर महत्वपूर्ण सुधार सरकार ने किए हैं जिनमें दिवाला संहिता, जीएसटी, इमारत योजना की मंजूरी के लिए एकल खिड़की प्रणाली, ऑनलाइन कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा आयोग और भविष्य निधि पंजीकरण जैसे सुधार शामिल हैं।

इन सभी पर विश्वबैंक ने इस साल विचार नहीं किया है। विभाग ने कहा कि वह सुधारों पर आगे काम जारी रखेगा। इसके लिए बाहरी एजेंसियों की नियुक्ति, हितधारकों से बातचीत इत्यादि शामिल है। उन्होंने कहा कि हम विश्वबैंक के साथ मुलाकात जारी रखेंगे और उन्हें इस बात के लिए राजी करेंगे कि हमारे द्वारा किए गए इन 12 प्रमुख सुधारों को अपनी रपट में शामिल करें। मोदी सरकार व्यापार सुगमता के लिये प्रयास कर रही है और उसका लक्ष्य देश को शीर्ष 50 में लाना है।

Courtesy: Janta ka Reporter

The post ‘मेक इन इंडिया’ के बावजूद, कारोबार करने की सुविधा में भारत निचले स्थान पर मिली 130वीं रैंक appeared first on SabrangIndia.