EPW

COMMENTARY

Source: *indiastat.com + GOI (2009).

this is considered as an extreme case. The figures have been updated using the consumer price index for industrial workers (CPI-IW) for urban areas, and with CPI for rural labourers (CPI-RL) for rural areas. Further to calculate the number of days, two cases are considered: (1) one person in the family is employed, and

(2) two persons are employed and receive the minimum wages for unskilled work.5 The wages for unskilled jobs are the lowest among all types of works and these are used to calculate the maximum number of days of work/employment in a month for crossing the poverty lines. The reference years for rural and urban areas are 2008-09 and 2010-11 respectively, depending on the availability of the data.

Table 2.1 (p 28) shows that in rural areas, at an all-India level, a family crosses the poverty line (in case 1) if one member works for only nine days or two members work for only five days in a month. In case 2, i e, with a relatively high BPL criterion, a family goes above the poverty line in only 13 days if one member is employed and in seven days if two m embers are employed. The calculated

Economic & Political Weekly

number of days varies widely across the states. The median number of days comes out to be 13 if one family member works and seven if two family members work under the first case; and 19.5 and 10 under the second case. Thus, even considering the high-level BPL criteria for families, on an average 10-20 days of employment in a month push families outside the poverty line.

Table 2.2 presents similar calculations for urban areas. At all-India level, urban families cross the BPL mark if one family member works for 11 days or two members work for six days under the first case. The corresponding figures are 16 and eight days for the second case. Given the high cost of living in urban areas, more numerous job opportunities and higher wages than in rural areas, it is very unlikely that the sole breadwinner of a family would work for only 16 days and two workers from a family would work for only six to eight days in a month.

In fact to meet their daily expenses, these poor workers work for more days in a month and also engage in part-time jobs and multiple assignments at the

vol xlviI no 7

same time. Thus, they could cross the

o fficial poverty line very easily, but given their large family sizes, socio-economic status and poor access to social sector services, their living conditions remain poor. The calculations demonstrate that the majority of the unorganised workers and their families are deprived of much needed social security facilities just b ecause they lie above the poverty line.

Reaction and the Politics of Welfare

Most unorganised workers battle fears of uncertainty and failure in their daily life. There were large expectations from the social security package, but the legislation turned out to be weak, leading to widespread dissatisfaction. Unorganised workers – construction labourers, sweepers, dhobis, coconut tree-climbers, childcare providers, hand-embroidery artisans, bead makers and small shop vendors – led a demonstration with the Unorganised Workers’ Federation in Chennai in July 2009 (The Hindu 2009). In addition to the gap in coverage of health schemes, another grievance raised by these workers

COMMENTARY

was the issuance of cards by the village administrative officers only to the agricultural labourers in a family and not to other unorganised workers.

In March 2010, a demonstration rally under the banner of Karnataka State Tailors Association (KSTA) in Mangalore (The Hindu 2010a) wanted the UWSSA to include welfare funds for tailors, soft loans for housing, children’s education, healthcare benefits and old-age pension facilities. While making provisions for each specific group of unorganised workers may be difficult, the ambit of the UWSSA could have easily been broadened to include provisions for workers in APL category.

A nationwide bandh called by various trade unions on 7 September 2010, aimed to pressurise the government to extend the benefits of the UWSSA to each and every unorganised worker. The demonstration and strike were fairly supported by organised workers (The Hindu 2010b, c).

Populist Move

What can be expected from a legislation that leaves everything to the whim of the government? In the absence of any timeline, compulsion or penalty, little progress has been made since the enactment of the law. Recently, a National Social Security Fund (NSSF) has been made operational to fund the schemes. Budget 2010-11 declared an allocation of Rs 1,000 crore for financing the schemes, mainly targeting weavers, toddy tappers, rickshaw pullers and bidi workers (Sen 2010). However, the fund amount is minuscule, considering the large number of unorganised workers (around 423 million). According to the Centre for Budget and Governance Accountability, an “allocation of Rs 22,841 crore (i e, 0.39% of GDP as estimated by NCEUS) should have been made in the budget for universal social security coverage” (cited by Sen 2010).

Initiatives at the state level have been very slow. In the conference of the state labour ministers at New Delhi, on 22 January 2010, only seven big states – Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Jharkhand, Haryana, West Bengal, Kerala and Madhya Pradesh

– reported forming the Worker’s Welfare Boards. In April 2010, the Orissa government formed its state social security board (Business Standard 2010). No new schemes seem to be in the pipeline to address the issues suggested by the bill or at least to justify the title of the UWSSA.

A detailed analysis of the UWSSA makes it clear that the government is not at all willing to guarantee any social security benefits to the unorganised workers. Then why hurry up to bring out such an incomplete, unstructured, loose-ended legislation? The answer can be found looking at the context in which the government got the legislation passed. The bill reached the floor during the last phase of the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government’s tenure, just before the 15th general elections to the Lok Sabha scheduled for April-May 2009. So just six months before the election, the UPA government hastily declared the UWSSA, undoubtedly, in a political move to lure the votes of the 92% unorganised workforce. Experience tells us that schemes launched primarily to fulfil the requirement of votes and populist agendas, without political will, are difficult to sustain. Rao et al (2006) cite as an example the National Social Security Scheme 2004, hastily launched by the then central government as a pilot project in 50 chosen districts. Though the UWSSA is a constitutional legislation and not a governmental welfare scheme, it needs serious amendment to become more meaningful.

Notes

1 NCEUS (2009: 181) recommends as minimum conditions of work: (1) working day of eight hours including half-hour break, (2) one paid leave per week, (3) extension of Minimum Wages Act 1948 to all the employments, (4) piece-rate wage to time rate wage, (5) equal remuneration to women, (6) penalty for deferred payment of wages, (7) imposition of fines in case of deduction in wages, (8) right to organise, (9) nondiscrimination, (10) accident compensation and use of safety equipment, (11) protection from sexual harassment, and (12) arrangements for child-care and basic amenities at the workplace.

The social security provisions (NCEUS 2009: 181) are: (1) Health benefits including hospitalisation benefit for the worker and his/her family to the tune of Rs 15,000 per year, sickness allowance for 15 days beyond 3 days of hospitalisation at Rs 50 per day, maternity benefit to the extent of Rs 1,000 to the worker/spouse of worker. (2) Life and disability cover for all the unorganised workers to include life and disability insurance to the tune of Rs 30,000 (natural death), Rs 75,000 (accidental death or total permanent disability) and Rs 37,500 (in case of partial permanent disability). (3) Old age security in the form of pension of Rs 200 per month to all BPL workers above the age of 60 years and provident fund for other workers.

2 Summary Record of Discussions of the 42nd Session of Indian Labour Conference held on 20-21 February 2009 in New Delhi. Last viewed on 26 January 2012: labour.nic.in/lc/42ilc/Re-cordNoteofDiscussions.pdf

3 Summary Record of Discussions of the 43rd Session of Indian Labour Conference held on 23-24 November 2010 in New Delhi, viewed on 15 January 2011: http://labour.nic.in/lc/43ilc/ RecordNoteofDiscussionAmendedbyMOLE.pdf

4 Last viewed on 26 January 2012: http://www. rsby.gov.in/ 5 “Minimum Wages (2006-07)”, v on 1 Ja

, v

ii

ee

ww

ee

dd

22

nn

--

References

Business Standard (2010): “Orissa to Form Social Security Board for Unorganised Workers”, Business Standard, 12 April, viewed on 12 January 2011:http://www.business-standard.com/ india/news/orissa-to-form-social-security-boardfor-unorganised-workers/391581/

GOI (2008): “The Unorganised Workers’ Social Security Act, 2008”, Ministry of Law and Justice, New Delhi.

– (2009): “Report of the Expert Group to Review the Methodology for Estimation of Poverty”, viewed on 30 March 2011, Planning Commission, Government of India: (http://www.planningcommission.gov.in/reports/genrep/rep_pov.pdf)

Goswami, Paromita (2009): “A Critique of the Unorganised Workers’ Social Security Act”, Economic & Political Weekly, 44(11): 17-18.

Jose, A V (2006): “Is Legislation the Only Solution?”, Economic & Political Weekly, 41(32): 3480-83.

NCEUS (2006): “Report on Social Security for Unorganised Sorkers”, Government of India, New Delhi.

Neetha, N (2006): “Invisibility Continues?”, Economic & Political Weekly, 41(32): 3497-99.

O’Keefe, Philip and Robert Palacios (2006): “Evaluating NCEUS Social Security Proposals in Light of International Experience”, Economic & Political Weekly, 41(32): 3483-87.

Rao, V M, D Rajasekhar and J Y Suchitra (2006): “Putting the Cart before a Non-Existent Horse”, Economic & Political Weekly, 41(32): 3488-91.

Shankar, V (2009): “Unorganised Workers’ Social Security Act 2008: A Beginning for Bigger Struggles!”, viewed on 19 November 2010: http://www.cpiml.org/liberation/year_2009/ feb_09/commentary_3.html.

Sen, Amiti (2010): “Social Security Schemes Set to Get Off the Ground Faster”, Economic Times, 3 November, viewed on 12 January 2011: http:// articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/201011-03/news/28452274_1_labour-ministryunorganised-workers-social-security.

The Hindu (2009): “Unorganised Workers Stage Protest Demonstration”, The Hindu, 7 July, viewed on 27 January 2012: http://www.hindu.com/ 2009/07/07/stories/2009070759120400.htm.

vol xlviI no 7

EPW