Why workplace safety should be a fundamental right
The institutional framework governing industrial safety issues in India needs to be strengthened
Yesterday was World Day for Safety and Health at Work (according to the ILO), and simultaneously International Commemoration Day for Dead and Injured Workers (according to the International Trades Union Confederation). And April 23 marked the fifth anniversary of the Rana Plaza industrial accident in Bangladesh — yet another opportunity for the world to think about and undertake policy actions to enhance workers’ safety.
Occupational safety and health (OSH) is a key concern in India. We have an institutional framework in place, comprising labour laws (such as the Factories Act, 1948, and the Building and Other Construction Workers Act, 1996); regulatory institutions (directorates of factories and boilers), advisory bodies (Directorate General, Factory Advice Service and Labour Institutes); and research institutes (National Institute of Occupational Health). However, India has not ratified any of the three major general conventions relating to OSH (C155, C161, C185), and it has ratified only two (C115 and C174) of the nine conventions that ensure protection against specific risks.
The media regularly report major industrial accidents (such boiler explosions, industrial robotic accidents, fire accidents and so on) occurring in both public and private sector establishments. Dilipkumar Patel and Kumar Neeraj Jha’s research shows that the construction industry in India annually contributes 24.2 per cent of occupation fatalities, the highest in the country. The labour ministry’s data on fatal injuries reported per 100,000 mandays worked in the years 1991-2013 showed no sign of a dip, while that on non-fatal injuries showed a steep decline. However, owing to the high incidence of non-reporting and underestimation, official data on injuries and accidents are neither valid nor reliable.
While industrial accidents have been occurring at regular intervals, snuffing out human lives or damaging the environment beyond repair, there is not much public debate on this either in the media or in academic circles. Further, the policy orientation towards safety is far more worrying than the disasters themselves. The neo-classical economic proposition is that profit-maximising employers would pay attention to workers’ safety due to the investment made in workers, and to prevent potential production disruption and damage to the firm’s reputation. Using this logic Prime Minister Narendra Modi likened boiler maintenance to the maintenance of a private car! In reality, employers often pursue a low-cost business strategy. The global supply chain has further intensified the adoption of competitive low-cost practices, which has often led to unregulated contracting and sub-contracting that is evident in industries like garments.
As a result of these paradigm shifts, the institutional framework governing industrial safety suffers from five serious ailments. One, the institutional coverage is narrow in that it does not cover the huge unorganised sector and the emerging service sectors with their own occupational hazards, like e-waste. While there are no reliable estimates of the working population covered by the institutional framework, the British Safety Council puts it at 20 per cent.
Two, even those covered are not adequately monitored, thanks to inadequate public sector enforcement resources. According to Occupational Health and Safety Profile, 2017, in 2014, 743 factory inspectors were mandated to inspect 307,459 working factories, which means that an inspector is expected to cover 414 factories in a year. According to one newspaper report, 10 safety officials inspect 3,000 boilers in Karnataka!
Three, information, data bases, mapping and research on safety and occupational diseases need serious policy attention from the government.
Four, the economic and labour policies followed in the post-reform period have led to the emergence of precarious employment (where workers are subject to unstable employment, lower wages and more dangerous working conditions); these workers are more unlikely to receive legal protection, OSH training, and union coverage and hence are more vulnerable. Tsyoshi Kawakami, an ILO official, has said that precarious workers are more likely to bear the brunt of poor OSH policies and lax governance.
Five, it is well known that workers and trade unions are important stakeholders and players in ensuring safe workplaces. Neo-liberal policies have weakened both governance and the place and role of trade unions. It is not as if industrial safety was high during the heyday of planning. What is worrying is the policy orientation and economic thinking that places greater emphasis on economic outcomes rather than processes and institutions.
It is another story that the trade union movement in India has not given due importance to OSH. While OSH need not displace its major concerns, it needs to be given high importance. It is also ironical that OSH has not figured high on the agenda of ILO, as it does not figure as one of the Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. ILO has been careful in not including labour rights that could have monetary implications — say, minimum wages — and hence adverse implications for poor and developing countries. But safety is a larger issue in that it is not only about the human body and life but also the environment. Hence it is imperative that ILO’s centenary agenda should include safe work and living, and elevate it to the status of a fundamental right.
While industrial accidents have been occurring at regular intervals, snuffing out human lives, there is not much public debate on the issue in the media or in academic circles