Domestic workers (DWs) are amongst the largest and most vulnerable groups in the unorganised sector. This is evidenced by the fact that the workforce is overwhelmingly composed of poor, lower-caste women. Numerous cases of sexual, physical, and verbal abuse have been reported; many more go unreported due to the uneven power dynamics.
ALSO READ: Opinion | The Rise Of False POCSO Cases In India: A Growing Concern
Yet, a comprehensive law and policy are absent. Five years have passed, and the National Policy on Domestic Workers has still not materialised. Additionally, the Domestic Workers (Registration, Social Security and Welfare) Bill, 2008 and the Domestic (Regulation of Work and Social Security) Bill, 2017 have not been passed. This begs the question: Why has such uniform regulation not seen the light of day?
The answer lies in the unique nature of domestic work. Firstly, the household as a workplace is still an alien concept in India. This makes labour standards compliance a challenge. Any regulation of this space will likely be perceived as an intrusion of the right to privacy. A compromise here could be – maximising documentary evidence and diminishing inspections to extraordinary circumstances. The employer could be required to declare the recruitment to the Ministry of Labour, keep the necessary documentation and be called for an interview with the labour inspector, akin to the existing passport verification process. The concerned DW can be interviewed later to verify the facts and documentation.
Secondly, unlike traditional industries, DWs do not usually share a common workplace. Each DW works in an isolated, private space, hired by different employers. This has kept the workforce fragmented, making unionisation difficult. The Karnataka Domestic Workers Congress’s success at organising DWs in Bangalore provides some valuable lessons. The union became 7000 members strong and secured the inclusion of DWs under the Unorganised Workers Social Security Act of 2008 and the Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojna. This unionisation was achieved through careful selection of organisers, spreading awareness about trade union aims and policies via media, printed material in local languages, campaigns in public places, and collaboration with local councillors.
Thirdly, domestic work is considered unskilled and not regarded as work in many cases! Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code and the Code on Wages exclude private households as a workplace. The Minimum Wages Act of 1948 mainly views DWs as unskilled, resulting in wages much lower than others in the informal sector. This necessitates the professionalisation of DWs and the promotion of placement agencies. Best practices could be taken from the Confederation of Trade Unions Training Centre, Hong Kong, which trained and placed more than 40,000 DWs. The 100+ hours of outcome-driven training sessions awarding competency cards after practical assessments paired with a robust placement team performing marketing and job-matching turned out to be a game-changer.
Each of the above interventions strengthens the other. Professionalisation may not ensure higher wages, and placement agencies may overexploit DWs, but these can be offset with strong unions and regular labour inspections. Thus, the state must emphasise a bottom-up, holistic approach to grant visibility to these invisible yet indispensable workers.
(The author is an advocate for social justice and community empowerment and is currently pursuing a PG Diploma in Labour Laws & Welfare. All views and opinions expressed are the author's own)