SLAVERY AND URBAN EMPLOYMENT
Anannya Bhattacharjee*
The Position of Domestic Workers
In 2002, the Office of the United Nations High Commission for Human Rights included domestic work in forms of contemporary slavery. Phyllis Palmer in the last century had defined "three factors that metaphorically and structurally linked housework and slavery: not treating domestics as people independent of their employers, designing housework to give domestics the physically hardest tasks, and demanding almost unlimited working hours."
The first factor is a critical one. For the live-in domestic worker it means that she has no personal time, including while sleeping as she may be asked to sleep with the child to whom she is providing care. For a part-time domestic worker it means an unending obligation to carry out any task given to her, regardless of what she was hired for, whether she would be paid at all and how long it would take. It is also the factor that holds back domestic workers from getting their full rights in the workplace as workers. Every Member of Parliament, every person who can push for domestic workers' rights is very often him/herself an employer; they are reluctant to accord any independent status to the domestic worker as that would reduce their control over her labour, time, and even body.
Every political party in India - Left, Right, Centre - may differ on a lot of matters but unite on the position of domestic workers. We saw this in the case of employer Ms. Devyani Khobragade, former Deputy Consul General of India who had taken a domestic worker, Ms. Sangeeta Richards, under an A-3 visa to the United States. According to the law, diplomats are required to provide a contract to the worker that lists hours, wages, and duties. The wage is required to be at least the prevailing wage at the time, which was $9.75 an hour. Ms. Khobragade signed a contract that stated that she would follow these laws. However, she was accused of lying to the US government and of signing a second unlawful contract that did not list fair hours or working conditions/duties, and included a wage of 30,000 rupees per month (about $3.31/hr).
Ms. Khobragade was arrested in New York on December 12, 2013 for visa fraud and for lying about payments to her domestic worker, Ms. Richards, who had escaped to get away from her employer's various abuses. Loud and visible voices of protest rose against what was seen as imperialist US government's high-handed and insulting treatment of Ms. Khobragade. She had been handcuffed, strip searched and put in a jail with "common criminals" as charges were framed against her. Her treatment outraged the sensibilities of Indian bureaucrats and establishment; the media had vociferous interviews with ministers and diplomats to express fury at such lack of discretion. As the dust settled a bit, it appeared that Ms. Khobragade had been treated in the same way that anyone arrested in US is. In other words, the US criminal justice system may be dehumanising but such are its procedures and they were followed.
But, Indian anger refused to subside. In retaliation, the Indian government stripped American diplomats of identity cards granting them diplomatic benefits, and security barriers around the American Embassy in New Delhi were taken away. A former finance minister suggested that India respond by arresting same-sex partners of American diplomats, since the Indian Supreme Court had recently upheld a section of a Colonialera law that criminalizes homosexuality.
Political parties that differ otherwise, remained united on the message that Ms. Khobragade's treatment was
[5]
an indication of imperialist and colonialist United States' lack of respect for Indian diplomats! Shiv Sena in Mumbai and CPI-M in Kolkata marched and demonstrated. Their highest office-bearers released statements of outrage, echoing those of the Congress Party.
During this period, Ms. Richards' family in Gurgaon, Haryana, was threatened and intimidated by agents of the Khobragade family, urging them to pressurize Ms. Richards to drop all plans for filing complaint against her employer for human rights abuses.
Throughout this period the dignity of only one citizen mattered - Ms. Khobragade - and Ms. Richards was completely ignored and invisible. On a television show where a former Ambassador and I were interviewed, the former Ambassador questioned why a domestic worker like Ms. Richards would need to be given a day off - what would she do anyway? Where would she go? He asked. And in any case, she becomes like a family member. There in lies the core reason why domestic workers have not yet got their rights. A domestic worker wants to be and should be treated like a "worker"; but the employer-employee relationship remains camouflaged behind an "all in the family" hypocritical discourse designed to extract the most from a domestic worker, deemed less than human.
Feudalism and the distasteful caste system in India continue to de-humanise labour, especially manual labour and most heinously, the work of cleaning - be it domestic worker, garbage collection or horrific manual scavenging. Such workers are seen and treated as less than human. The de-humanised and thirdclass citizen status accorded to domestic workers is a systemic issue permeating all institutions.
On 29th January, 2014, the body of a 13-year old (publicly pronounced to be 17-year old) live-in minor domestic worker, Ms. Sabina, was found hanging in her employer's house in DLF, Phase 3, Gurgaon, at the residence of Mr. Vijay Beri. Ms. Sabina's family was certain that she had been raped and murdered by male members in the family. The employer offered Rs.3 lakh to the family members and asked them not to demand an inquiry into the death. The family refused to accept any money and demanded full justice. They had also found the police at the residence sitting around, enjoying tea and snacks with the alleged perpetrator instead of carrying out their lawful duties.
The photographs of Ms. Sabina's dead body taken by the police definitely create an impression that her body was hanged after her death. The police had even failed to initially register an FIR. It is only on the insistence of family members, local community people and women's rights activists from Gharelu Kamgaar Sanghatan (GKS)-Gurgaon, the police finally registered an FIR on 30th January under Section 302 and 376 of the IPC. The FIR named Mr. Vijay Beri and his two sons as primary suspects in this case. Even after registering of FIR, the police dilly-dallied on arresting the suspected culprits. Instead, on the night of 30th January, 2014, the Gurgaon police unlawfully lathi-charged the peaceful gathering of bereaved family and community members and arrested women's rights activists who were peacefully waiting at the morgue adjacent to the City Police Station, Gurgaon, to receive a response from Gurgaon police to their demand of a second post-mortem.
The police then went around pressurizing community members to give up the demand of a second post-mortem. Gurgaon police threatened the community members of slapping false cases of riot and hooliganism against them. On the order of the Gurgaon Court the second post-mortem did get conducted. The Court also ordered the police to undertake medical examination of the accused in this case. The case continues to be fought in the courts at present as GKS is determined to create accountability in a region for employers of domestic workers who have been getting away with egregious human rights violations.
[ 6 ]
Progress in the 21st Century: Two Steps Forward, One and a Half Steps Backward?
It would be remiss to say that the 21st century continues along the same lines as earlier centuries. After all, on June 16, 2011, the ILO passed the historic Domestic Workers' Convention 189, after over half a century from when the idea had been first floated in the 1950s. Sceptics may say that is high-level international policy with no ground level impact - but they would be wrong. The Convention would not have seen the light of day without a thoughtful knitting together of a global movement by domestic workers' organisations and allies across continents. The passing of the Convention broke the silos of "formal labour movement" that is part of official ILO and the "informal labour movement" that usually has no status or at best observer status in the ILO. The passage of C189 is a reflection of how the "informal labour movement", the women workers' movement and transnational feminism are changing the labour movement as a whole.
The number of domestic workers in India is a disputed number ranging from 4.75 million to 90 million. The National Platform for Domestic Workers approximates it at 50 million. The varied numbers only points to a structural problem in the domestic work industry - it is invisible, unreported, and presents many practical problems to the data collector. However there is agreement that the number of domestic workers has increased dramatically in the 21st century. The National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO) data reveals that the number of domestic workers in urban areas increased by 68 per cent in the decade between 1999-2000 and 2009-2010. Scholars have documented a similar increase in migrant domestic workers worldwide signalling a growing need in the "care industry."
In India, domestic workers are often inter-state migrants from poorer states and rural areas to urban areas. Researchers and activists also note that migrant domestic workers are increasingly being trafficked by unscrupulous recruitment agencies who supply labour to urban areas, and can trap women in situations of sexual violence and egregious human rights abuses.
Domestic workers are categorized approximately into two categories - live outs and live-ins; part-time workers who are all live-outs and full-time workers who can be either. Domestic workers' work is usually undefined and hours infinitely stretchable. A cook may be asked to clean or vice versa; and usually the extra work and time is uncompensated. A cleaning person may be asked to also do childcare, eldercare, shop for groceries, and so on without adequate or any extra compensation. Domestic workers' wages are undefined and dependent on the vagaries of the labour market, the location of employment, and their ability to bargain with respective employers privately. Domestic workers have no access to leave; their pay is deducted if they take leave. Some get Sundays off; some never get a day off. Needless to say that domestic workers have no provision for social security - PF, ESI and pension.
The de-valuation of domestic work, as women's work, has been written about extensively. Domestic work, housework, and housewife's work occupy a space that is de-valued, unacknowledged, under-paid and unpaid in the world of labour. In India, domestic workers have been left out of the labour laws as they are not considered 'workers' and their work is not considered an 'industry'. There have been sporadic attempts to bring domestic work under legal purview starting as early as 1959 when a Domestic Workers (Conditions of Service) Bill, a private members' bill was introduced in the Rajya Sabha. This bill together with All India Domestic Servants Bill was introduced in the Lok Sabha. In 1972 and 1977 two further private member bills [Domestic Workers (Conditions of Service) Bill, 1972 and the Domestic Workers (Conditions of Service) Bill, 1977] were introduced in the Lok Sabha, which provided for the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to be extended to domestic workers. In 1989, the House Workers (Conditions of Service) Bill was introduced. All these bills lapsed or were ignored for various reasons. They had tried to introduce minimum working conditions such as wages, hours, leave; provide mechanism for registration of workers; and even a welfare fund to which employers would contribute.
[ 7 ]
Much like the rest of the world, the Government of India continued to perceive domestic workers not as a labour rights issue but as an entitlement of employers. In India, as across the world, equal remuneration for women was a greater priority than the rights of domestic workers, as it affected middle class working women who were trying to get a voice in the mainstream labour movement. Domestic workers, given their abject condition, are at most worthy of some patronizing "benefits" so that their much-needed labour supply could be maintained. Trade unions across the political spectrum in India did not think them worthy of being organized as a class of workers.
Ultimately, women's organisations and feminists that were concerned with informal sector and low-wage women's work took to organizing domestic workers - not necessarily as a union but as collectives of various types. Radical shifts in global politics towards the end of 20th century also changed institutions like the ILO. As Eileen Boris and Jennifer Fish says: "During the last third of the twentieth century, the ILO…attempted to adapt to the twists and turns of global politics, …declines in industrial unions, the emergence of the service sector, …the rise of neoliberalism through market ideology, financialization, and structural adjustment; and the unraveling of social democratic welfare solutions to capitalist globalization. It investigated domestic work in specific locales: in 1993, for example, the ILC recommended placing domestic workers under the labor law in post- apartheid South Africa. In approving Convention 177 on Home Work in 1996, it set a precedent that home-based employment deserved coverage under labor standards." The Director-General of ILO at that time, Juan Somavia" encouraged an emphasis on women's labor, the informal economy, and transnational migration"… and "dedicated the Office to 'internalizing' gender equality in 'all our technical work, operational activities and support services'."
As domestic workers organized themselves outside the mainstream and official labour movement worldwide and in India, their issues became foregrounded in the 21st century. Global organizations such as WIEGO (Women in the Informal Economy Globalising and Organising) and global unions like IUF (International Union of Food-workers) became their strongest allies internationally, and the International Domestic Workers Network (IDWN) was founded in 2006. The domestic workers' global movement finally won when Convention 189 was passed in the ILO in 2011. IDWN became the first global union federation of women workers and re-named itself International Domestic Workers Federation (IDWF) at its Founding Congress in Uruguay in 2013. Uruguay was the first country to ratify C189.
The Government of India in recent years, under pressure, has taken some steps to provide legal protection and social security to domestic workers. Domestic workers have been included in the Unorganized Workers' Social Security Act (2008) and the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act (2013). In 2010/11 the GoI created a task force that included involvement from civil society to draw out a national policy for Domestic Workers. National Policy on Domestic Workers has been formulated by the Ministry of Labour but is yet to be notified.
A central law is required for regulating this sector since the workers frequently cross inter-state boundaries. Various bills have been proposed such as one by the National Commission for Women in 2008 and another the Domestic Workers Rights Campaign in 2010. But we still do not have a national law to protect the rights and welfare of the largest as well as the fastest growing sector of employment for women in the urban areas.
India has not yet ratified Convention 189, although 22 countries have. India did sign on to the Convention when it passed but its refusal to ratify shows its disinclination for constructing national laws that would need to follow ratification.
According to National Commission for Enterprises in the Unorganised Sector (NCEUS)2007, majority of domestic workers - about 84 per cent and 92 per cent in urban and rural areas respectively - get wages
[ 8 ]
much below the minimum wage. A significant per cent of domestic workers are single breadwinners; although through the gendered lens of common wisdom they are viewed as earning "supplemental" income in addition to their male spouses. It is not surprising that a majority of them are in debt regularly, just to meet their regular expenses.
Over the years, a handful of states have taken different actions regarding minimum wages for domestic workers, particularly with the Central Government recommending States to define minimum wages for domestic workers. Close to ten states have included domestic workers in the Schedule of Employment and as of 2012, minimum wages for domestic workers were notified in six states: Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh Bihar, Rajasthan, Kerala and Jharkhand. Three states have constituted separate Domestic Worker Welfare Boards. The government of Maharashtra has issued a code of conduct to all employers of domestic workers which include 1) 15 days of paid leave, 2) a weekly day off or a day's salary, 3) a month salary as bonus at Diwali and travel allowance to go to their native places for holidays, 4) medical assistance, and 5) increment in the domestic workers salary.
The Minimum Wage notification and the inclusion of domestic work in the Schedule of Employment in a number of states is an important step in the struggle for labour rights in this long-neglected sector. However, it is important to note that this in itself does not establish domestic work as having an employment relationship within the private household. This problem is side-stepped as wages are notified based on tasks.
The tasks in most states, except for Kerala, are limited to only a few tasks such as cleaning and cooking among a few others. This continues to demonstrate the lack of acknowledgement given to the vast range of work of different skill levels performed in the home. One of the challenges continues to be definition of all that constitutes domestic work; as well as an acknowledgement of the fact the several tasks in domestic work require high level of skills. Instead "domestic work" continues to be lumped under unskilled work globally and in India.
Minimum wage setting practices in domestic work: an inter-state analysis published by the ILO and researched by Neetha N. reports that hourly rates have been set in the states that have notified minimum wage for domestic worker. This shows that part-time workers are being included but there is little in terms of rest, overtime, and the infinitely stretchable definition of domestic work continues to be a problem. A worker with multiple employers faces work intensification in terms of hours and tasks and this is unacknowledged. A live-in worker whose work is never finished is deprived of overtime, rest and other rights that make for a human life. The notifications do not take into account house size and family size.
The report also notes that consultation with domestic workers or their representatives was limited in wage setting although improved over time due to pressure of domestic workers' organisations. Employers' and their organisations were not consulted sufficiently either.
While the statutory wages are time rates, usually wage rates for part time workers in the market are calculated in terms of tasks. The ILO report notes that "there are difficulties in comparing task based wage with a time rate wage in the context of part time workers as the details of the tasks differ from one house to another depending on the household profile such as number of members, age of members, area of the house, and so on…" Some domestic workers organisations in India have developed "rate cards" through consultations with their members; it is important to note that statutory wages fall far short of the rate cards which are not highly aspirational wages but rather what the worker thinks is minimally fair.
When domestic workers' task wages are compared to other informal sector work such as construction, one
[ 9 ]
finds that the domestic workers' rates are lowest. The ILO notes that this clearly foregrounds the devaluation of domestic work.
Organising and Bargaining, Building Unity and Power
Organising domestic workers, much like other low-wage informal sector work, is extremely challenging. Domestic worker organizing is further complicated by the issue of privacy of a household that is also a workplace. Indeed, making the private home open to such things like labour inspection and monitoring, is strongly resisted.
The logic of where workers live and work play a crucial role in an organizing model. Workers who work in a particular locality, usually also live in slum clusters together - either near the employers' locality or further away depending on the way the city is constructed. Organisations usually organize according to the residential logic of the workers. The most difficult workers to organize are live-in workers as they are hidden in employers' homes which are deemed private.
A difficult issue for a labour-oriented (as opposed to welfare-oriented) organization is the identification of employers "as a group" with which bargaining can take place. Domestic workers want to be identified as a "group of workers", and want freedom of association and collective bargaining with an "employers' group". In Uruguay, the country to first ratify C189, collective bargaining takes place at a national level between representatives from the Ministry of Labour and Social Security, the Union of Domestic Workers (SUTD), and the employers' association Liga de Amas de Casa (LACCU).
In India, organisations support an individual worker to negotiate one-on-one with her individual employer but this does not necessarily lead to collective bargaining at a scale. Some organisations may be able to set prevailing wages in an area or even in a city by controlling labour supply; however, there is usually no contract or written agreement with employer(s). Yet another method that has not been tried long enough or widely enough but which some organisations are working on is to work towards a written contract between workers' groups and employers groups (identified through, for example, Resident Welfare Associations) by locality.
The National Platform for Domestic Workers (NPDW) was created in 2012 in India and comprises of several domestic workers unions and member based organizations from around the country that are demanding a comprehensive legislation for domestic workers. In the ILO's report on minimum wages mentioned above, it recommends, among other things, a "National Minimum Wage for Domestic Work: To protect the interest of domestic workers and to bring overall uniformity in the minimum wage rates across states there is a need to fix a national floor minimum wage below which the states cannot fix the state level wages"; "Better Minimum Wage Rates: Minimum wage rates of domestic workers should be at least on par with comparable work. The rates should also take into account the living needs of workers and their families"; and "Simplification of Rates: It may be desirable to have a flat rate for all tasks, without task differentiation. This would make the rate simple and easy to comprehend."
Several countries around the world have shown the way by ratifying C189, developing national legislation regulating the domestic work industry, and recognizing bargaining rights of domestic workers. As India aspires to become one of the top economies of the world, it would be short-sighted to think that growth is possible without progress in the one industry that makes all other work possible… domestic work.
[ 10 ]
Bibliography
Agarwala, Rina. 2008."Reshaping the Social Contract: Emerging Relations between the State and Informal Labor in India,"Theory and Society, Vol. 37, No. 4.
Ally, Shireen. 2005. "Caring about Care Workers: Organizing in the Female Shadow of Globalization." Labour, Capital and Society, Vol. 38, No. 1/2
Boris, Eileen and Jennifer N. Fish. 2014. "Slaves No More": Making Global Labor Standards for Domestic Workers,Feminist Studies, Vol. 40, No. 2
Chen, Martha and G. Raveendran. 2011. "Urban Employment in India: Recent Trends and Patterns," WIEGO Working Paper No. 7, November 2011 (Updated 2014).
Neetha N. 2015Minimum wage setting practices in domestic work: an inter-state analysis, Conditions of Work and Employment Series No. 66, ILO-Geneva.
Neetha N. 2008. "Regulating Domestic Work,"Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 43, No. 37
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner on Human Rights. 2002. Abolishing Slavery and Its Contemporary Forms,. David Weissbrodt and Anti-Slavery International. UN: New York and Geneva.
Palmer, Phyllis. 1989. Domesticity and dirt: Housewives and domestic servants in the United States, 1920-1945. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Report of the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of slavery, including its causes and consequences, Gulnara Shahinian. 1 July 2013. Human Rights Council
Sankaran, Kamala, Shalini Sinha and RoopaMadhav. Domestic Workers - Background Note. WIEGO, Law and Informality.
http://wiego.org/sites/wiego.org/files/resources/files/dw_background_note.pdf&embedded=true
*Anannya Bhattacharjee is a labour rights activicts and is Secretary governing board, Society for Labour & Developement (SLD)
