EMPLOYMENT GUARANTEE BILL TABLED IN PARLIAMENT - PUBLIC NOT AMUSED
Parliament Street wore an unusual look today, adorned as it was with thousands of banners demanding the immediate adoption of a full-fledged Employment Guarantee Act. The banners came from all over the country - virtually every district. They bore the signatures of over one lakh people, united in demanding an effective employment guarantee, as a fundamental requirement for the right to live with dignity. This striking display happened to coincide with the introduction of the National Rural Employment Guarantee Bill 2004 (NREGB 2004) in Parliament. However, even as the Bill was tabled in Parliament, speaker after speaker in Parliament Street denounced it as a travesty of the original project. The initial draft has been diluted to the extent of being fundamentally at odds with the basic principles of an employment guarantee, aside from violating the promise made in the Common Minimum Programme. As many speakers pointed out, the Bill lacks key safeguards that are essential for it to qualify as an "employment guarantee" act. In particular: - The "employment guarantee schemes" to be created under the Act are targeted to "poor households" (read BPL households). This is contrary to the fundamental principle of universal entitlement and self-selection - all the more so as the BPL list is highly unreliable. - The Act is to come into force "in such areas and for such periods" as may be notified by the Central Government. This makes it possible for the government to "switch off" the employment guarantee at any time. - There is no provision in NREGB 2004 for time-bound extension to the whole of rural India. - The NREGB 2004 does not guarantee payment of statutory minimum wages. It empowers the Central Government to notify different wages in different areas, for the purpose of the employment guarantee schemes created under the Act. The speakers at Parliament Street included Swami Agnivesh (Bandhua Mukti Morcha), Suneet Chopra (All India Agricultural Workers' Union), Sehba Farooqi (National Federation of Indian Women), Jayati Ghosh (Jawaharlal Nehru University), Madhuri Krishnaswamy (Jagrit Adivasi Dalit Sangathan), Surendra Mohan (veteran socialist), Hanan Mollah (Member of Parliament), Kuldip Nayyar (eminent journalist), Pramila Pandey (All India Democratic Women's Association), Vinod Raina (Bharat Gyan Vigyan Samiti), Aruna Roy (Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan), among others. The participants represented more than 100 different organizations committed to the right to work, which came together for this purpose under the banner of People's Action for the Employment Guarantee Act. For further information, quotes, interviews, etc., please contact Sowmya Sivakumar (tel 3091 7116 or 9350 530150) or Sowmya Kidambi (tel 2686 6343). BASIC FLAWS IN THE NATIONAL RURAL EMPLOYMENT GUARANTEE BILL 2004 (NREGB 2004) (NOTE: This is a preliminary and partial list; the Bill is yet to be submitted to detailed scrutiny.) 1. No time-bound extension to the whole of India: NREGB 2004 states that the employment guarantee shall apply "in such rural area and for such period as may be notified by the Central Government". In effect, the Bill guarantees 100 days of employment to every poor rural household but it does not guarantee when and where this will apply! In fact, the revised Act allows the government to switch off the employment guarantee anywhere at any time. 2. Targeting: Only "poor households" are entitled to guaranteed employment or the unemployment allowance. Poor households are defined as those "below the poverty line"; in practice this is likely to mean households with a "BPL card". This defeats the basic principle of the act - universal entitlement and "self selection". This flaw is all the more serious as the BPL list is known to be highly unreliable. 3. No minimum wage: NREGB 2004 says, "Notwithstanding anything contained in the Minimum Wages Act 1948, the Central Government may, by notification, specify the wage rate for the purposes of this Act". This gives the government further opportunities to undermine the Employment Guarantee Programme at any time by setting the wage rate at an arbitrarily low level. 4. Sidelining of Panchayati Raj Institutions: The National Advisory Council (NAC) draft gave a central role to Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs) in the planning and monitoring of the Employment Guarantee Programme. In NREGB 2004, the role of PRIs has been considerably diluted. For instance, the Block-level "Programme Officer" and the District Coordinator are no longer accountable to elected bodies (Intermediate Panchayat and Zila Parishad, respectively). The role of Gram Panchayats and Gram Sabhas has also been reduced. 5. Restrictive definition of permissible works: In the NAC draft, "productive works" were broadly defined as works that contribute directly or indirectly to "the increase of production, the creation of durable assets, the preservation of the environment, or the improvement of the quality of life". This has been considerably narrowed down in NREGB 2004, where emphasis is placed on specific types of work. 6. Excessive financial burden on state governments: In NREGB 2004, state governments are expected to pay for: (1) the "overhead" costs of the Employment Guarantee Programme, (2) 25 per cent of the cost of materials, and (3) the unemployment allowance. All state governments are under severe fiscal stress, and the Employment Guarantee Programme must be fully funded by the centre. In the event where the failure to provide employment is due to the lack of devolution of requisite funds from the central government, the payment of unemployment allowances should be reimbursed to the state government by the central government. 7. Inadequate safeguards for women: The initial limit of "hundred days per household per year" could lead to the marginalization of women. Individual work entitlements (eg. 100 days per adult) would be more appropriate. In the absence of individual entitlements at least 40% of the total employment generated must be reserved for women. 8. Exclusion of B and C Class Municipalities: The NAC draft had proposed that the EGA be extended to cover B and C Class municipalities but NREGB 2004 ignores this proposal and thus excludes large numbers of essentially rural households from the purview of the EGA. Note: This leaflet was prepared for People's Action for the Employment Guarantee Act (Delhi, 21 December 2004) by the local organising committee. While it reflects a range of broadly shared concerns regarding NREGB 2004, this leaflet may not fully reflect the specific concerns of every participating organisation. _________________________________ Labour Notes South Asia (LNSA): An informal archive and mailing list for trade unionists and labour activists based in or working on South asia. LNSA Mailing List: Labour Notes South Asia To subscribe send a blank message to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> LNSA Web site: groups.yahoo.com/group/lnsa/ Run by The South Asia Citizens Web www.sacw.net _________________________________ ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar. Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free! http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/e0EolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To join the Labour Notes South Asia Mailing List, send a blank message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lnsa/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
