Domestic help, apex court yelps

Sometimes, the remarks by the Supreme Court attract attention, and a firestorm of controversies. If the issue pertains to livelihoods, the latter is bigger. Yet, hardly any attention was paid to the observations by the apex court on January 29, when it dismissed a petition for minimum wages, and better working conditions for domestic help. The top court said, “These trade union leaders (who were a party to the petition), will leave these people in the lurch. People will stop hiring domestic help. In all major cities, service provider agencies have taken over. In all major cities, these big entities… are exploiting these people. They are the real exploiters…. When a minimum wage is enforced, these unions will ensure that every household is dragged into litigation.”

In the last few decades, no matter who the Chief Justice is, or which bench hears the petition, the apex court rarely delivers indictments against civil society activists or trade unions, who fight for the oppressed classes. When the farm laws came into being a few years ago, there were massive protests by the farmers. Delhi was effectively blockaded. Numerous petitions were filed against public suffering due to the blockades. By the time the Supreme Court decided on them, the farm laws were repealed. Maybe because of this, or other reasons, the court followed with mild observation that blockades were illegal.

So, what is the difference between the farmers and domestic workers? Why do the former get extra attention, and the latter do not. From a political point of view, both are huge voting blocs. In fact, the two blocks, and their families determine electoral outcomes in assembly and national elections. There is still an illusion that the BJP is an upper caste-dominated party. However, certain sections of the oppressed classes have switched loyalty to the BJP over the last few decades. The differential treatment between the farmers and workers is intriguing. The farm laws were repealed, but labour codes were pushed through.

In the case of domestic help, one cannot blame the Supreme Court, because it categorically asked the petitioners to negotiate with the state governments to pass laws to protect the rights of the domestic workers. Official estimates indicate that the number of domestic helps is just under 10 million. But the real number may exceed 75 million because virtually every middle-class household has help. If some estimates are believed, the number may be 100-200 million.

Coming back to our question, I think that there is not much difference between a farmer and worker. What is crucial is the role, power, and influence of the vested interests, who invariably have the upper hand. In the case of the farm laws, the farmers showed their street power, and forced the ruling regime to surrender. But did it really help the oppressed farmers, the small and marginal ones? Possibly not. The farm laws were meant to dismantle the system created by the vested interests, and designed to benefit small farmers, and agricultural workers. But since they were repealed, the status quo continues.

The situation is not different for the working classes or workers. They are in a unique category, where about 10 per cent are in the so-called organised sector, and are part of strong unions, and get higher wages and other benefits. But this, again, is becoming a myth. Over the last two decades or so, even the best firms hire contractual employees, and bypass the unions. Those on contracts have minimal benefits. This often leads to protests and violence, and there were murders in the factories of renowned firms. The same is true for domestic help.

In the case of domestic help, supply has mostly exceeded demand, although there are urban pockets, like a few localities, where the helps enjoy undue power and influence. Overall, the number of unskilled workers who do manual labor are present in large numbers. In fact, a harsh reality is that if you visit urban conglomerates and centres, immigrants may have replaced locals. They may be from the other states, or even across the borders from other nations. The same is true in farming, although the labour comes from other states.

In most developed and emerging economies, workers from agriculture move to manufacturing, and enjoy higher productivity and better wages. This has sadly not happened in India. Even in agriculture, the workers remain at the mercy of the vested interests. The same is true with domestic help, and other workers in the cities. As the Supreme Court observed, the labour-hiring agencies are the new vested interests in the case of domestic helps. They control the future of the workers, exploit them if required, and decide how they are treated.

Hence, the need of the hour is not judicial interference, or new state laws, as advised by the Supreme Court. What we need, as Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman’s latest budget shows, is more pragmatic laws, which ensure that both the employers and employees benefit from high and sustained economic growth. There needs to be a sharing of the financial, social, economic, and emotional gains. Of course, there will be inequalities, which will always remain. The powerful set, though smaller and puny, will benefit more. But if the lower and middle classes prosper, and climb up the prosperity ladder, we are on track.

Of course, the state needs to participate in the process. As the Supreme Court suggested, they can create and improve the mechanisms for better working conditions, either through laws, executive rules, or sheer nudges. Previously, the Supreme Court ordered the states to register domestic workers to help them get benefits like pensions, and maternity support. There are efforts to organise domestic workers under the Unorganised Social Security Act. A combination of the ongoing measures will help. They need to accelerate, and become faster.

Indeed, the Supreme Court adopted this approach. It asked the states to fulfil constitutional obligations, and determine minimum wages for the domestic workers after consultations with the various stakeholders. At the same time, it took on the unions as the ones which closed industries, whose members shy from hard work, and which are responsible for stopping industrial growth. Maybe a bit harsh on the unions, and too soft on errant states, which are lazy and unresponsive. The unions have pushed through several benefits for the workers, and the states have often watched the show, and acted only when pushed and pulled.

The author has worked for leading media houses, authored two books, and is now Executive Director, C Voter Foundation; views are personal