Labour

Britain’s governing Labour Party confirmed Andy Burnham as its new leader, clearing the way for him to become prime minister next week. In his first speech, he pledged to chart a new political and economic course, saying Britain needed a break from four decades of failed policies.

New Delhi, India – On a searing hot afternoon in a dense working class neighbourhood of the Indian capital, Shehnaz Bano sits on the dilapidated floor of her one-room home, deftly stitching pieces for a new leather jacket.

To make each piece – a sleeve, a front or back panel or a shoulder yoke – the 38-year-old mother of two teenage sons spends hours, but is paid a mere 100 rupees (about $1) for each piece.

“Imagine if I was a regular employee and I did the same work for the same hours, but on a factory floor. I would have been paid more, right?” Bano asked.

“Just because I work from home, I don’t get equal pay or rights.”

That is because Bano, like nearly 260 million others across the world, is a home-based worker (HBW) – people employed to produce goods or services in or near their homes. The HBWs are part of what is referred to as the global informal economy. Such a form of employment is characterised by low wages, denial of workers’ rights, lack of social security or established hours of work, or paid leave.

The HBWs are also a highly-feminised workforce, with nearly 57 percent being women, according to a 2024 estimate by Women in Informal Employment: Globalising and Organising (WIEGO), a United Kingdom-based global research organisation focused on improving conditions for the working poor, especially women, in the informal economy.

On this day 30 years ago, however, an effort was made to change the condition of the HBWs – with little success so far.

The International Labour Organisation (ILO), a United Nations’ body, during a conference at its headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland, adopted the landmark “Convention 177”, or the Home Work Convention on June 20, 1996, recognising HBWs at the same level as traditional wage earners.

It was the first comprehensive call to set an international standard for the HBWs. The convention called upon ILO members to adopt and implement policies that promote equality of treatment between HBWs and other wage earners.

Convention 177 officially came into force on April 22, 2000.

However, only 13 countries have ratified it so far and none from South Asia. That is despite Asia and the Asia-Pacific regions accounting for the largest concentration of HBWs, as well as being the hub of global fashion and manufacturing supply chains.

Renana Jhabvala was in the room in Geneva – along with hundreds of government and non-government delegates – when the home-based worker Convention was adopted.

As a member of the Self Employed Women’s Association (SEWA), a prominent Indian trade union of women workers, the 73-year-old activist was at the ILO’s International Labour Conference (ILC), and still remembers the exhilaration and optimism in the room.

“Discussions had gone on for nearly 21 days, but none of us knew whether the Convention would get adopted or not. We were all in a really big hall at the ILC… There was a majority in the final vote and the Convention got passed,” she told Al Jazeera.

But labour rights activists, experts and labour economists say a lack of recognition of the HBWs despite three decades of adopting the ILO convention has deepened structural inequalities among the workers, especially in a developing country like India.

According to them, the HBWs, especially women, remain largely “invisible” to the policymakers, while they are forced to work for inadequate wages under unsafe and exploitative working conditions.

“Convention 177 has been instrumental in recognising home work as ‘real work’ and home workers as workers entitled to labour rights,” Deepa Bharathi, a senior specialist of gender and non-discrimination at ILO’s Bangkok-based Decent Work Team, emailed Al Jazeera.

“In South Asia, home-based work is often embedded in complex subcontracting arrangements, making employment relationships difficult to identify and regulate. Challenges in labour inspection, gaps in data and the invisibility of home workers in policy frameworks have also slowed progress,” Bharathi said in response to a question on the low ratification of the Convention, particularly in South Asia.

With most home-based workers in the region being women, their work is often seen as an extension of household responsibility, Bharathi said. “This undervaluation, combined with broader gender inequalities, has been a significant barrier to ratification and implementation,” she added.

When asked about the ILO’s priorities for strengthening the Convention’s implementation, Bharathi said: “For women home-based workers in particular, the focus must remain on visibility, fair pay, social protection, safe working conditions, access to training and childcare and a stronger collective voice.”

‘I cannot go out and work’

Bano lives in New Delhi’s Kapashera area, a settlement of mainly migrant workers on the city’s southwestern edge whose name literally translates to a “cotton settlement” in English. The area is known for its cotton and leather garment manufacturing units.

In its congested alleys lie buildings that rent out single room units to informal worker families. In one such room lives Bano with her sons and her husband who works as a lift operator in an upscale mall in Gurugram, a business district housing several Fortune 500 companies on the outskirts of New Delhi.

Bano epitomises the arc of a typical HBW in India. She began working as a beedi (a tiny, hand-rolled cigarette) roller in her village in neighbouring Uttar Pradesh state’s Azamgarh district. After marriage, she joined her husband in New Delhi and took to stitching leather jacket pieces from home.

The move from her rural employment as a beedi roller to a piece-rate worker in the city did not change her continuing precarious situation: long hours, irregular work, low wages and work that leaves her eyes strained and fingers aching.

She is paid barely one dollar for her work on each piece of a leather jacket that is sold in a foreign market for $200 or more – more than double Bano’s average monthly income. Moreover, to cut costs and maximise profit, the contractors often split such work among several workers.

“Only those who are in distress do this kind of work. We have rent, bills, grocery and school fees to pay. How much will my husband do alone?” Bano told Al Jazeera.

The HBWs fall into two categories: own account workers with direct access to markets and piece rate workers who are usually employed through intermediaries. Bano belongs to the latter, which is considered more vulnerable due to low and arbitrary piece rate payments.

In another corner of Kapashera, Sangeeta Devi, 30, puts the final touches – buttoning, repairing, finishing – before the garments she makes return to the factories.

She is doing all this inside an 8×8 foot (2.4m) room, where her family of six, including four schoolchildren sleep, eat, work and study. She cooks, cleans and even bathes in the same room.

“I cannot go out and work because then who will take care of my children?”

“On any given day, there are 100 pieces of clothing in this tiny room. Each time, I have to keep them aside while doing household chores,” the migrant worker from Bihar, one of India’s poorest states, told Al Jazeera.

Sangeeta Devi gets a dollar for every 100 garment pieces she completes.

“I really want to do a job where I can work easily from home, take care of my children and get paid well. I don’t know if that’s even possible,” she told Al Jazeera.

Her neighbour, Putul Devi, does similar work and earns about $20 a month.

“I have been cooking on firewood because of high fuel costs. And when it rains, I don’t know what to save from spoiling – the firewood or the cloth pieces that I bring home,” she told Al Jazeera.

Shalini Sinha, home-based work sector specialist at WIEGO, said female HBWs in India face “continued invisibility” even after three decades of recognition of their work.

“Home continues to be seen as a place of habitat and not as a place of work,” Sinha told Al Jazeera.

“There is also the broader issue of women’s economic work not being adequately recognised in labour discourse when it is done from home. It is often seen as an extension of her care work,” she added.

From an Indian perspective, said Sinha, there is an “urgent need for better statistics and a dedicated policy or law for home-based workers, which still does not exist”.

Elizabeth Khumallambam, who works for Community for Social Change and Development (CSCD), an NGO that works with women HBWs in Kapashera, said a social security code introduced in India in 2020 mentions HBWs, but “no one knows” how it will be implemented on the ground.

Introduced as part of India’s labour reform laws, the code consolidated nine social security-related laws into a single framework to ensure social security protection for all workers, including those in the unorganised sector.

“Frankly, for us the challenge begins at making workers understand the value of their own work. Many don’t consider this as work and so they do not think it needs due rights and protection,” Khumallambam told Al Jazeera.

Alakh N Sharma, a labour economist and director at New Delhi-based non-profit, the Institute for Human Development, said there is a “bias in the system”, due to which women’s work is being left behind in statistics and official counting.

According to him, technology-aided counting, probing questions and sensitivity among investigators, could help in addressing the statistical blind spot.

“Safety concerns, mobility constraints and social norms – all these factors stop women from joining formal workplace-based employment. But the single biggest reason is often care work responsibility, particularly childcare,” Sharma told Al Jazeera.

In 2022, Sandosh Kumar P, a Communist Party of India (CPI) parliamentarian moved a legislation aimed at the welfare of the BHWs, but the parliament did not take it up for discussion.

In December 2024, India’s ministry of labour and employment was again asked in parliament whether it has an official assessment of the HBWs, and if it was proposing to enact a law on them. It replied that the Code on Social Security 2020 provides social security to the unorganised workers, including the HBWs. It also said the government has created a national database of such workers.

Looking back at the 30 years since the historic recognition of HBWs, Jhabvala said she did not view such Conventions or laws from the lens of success or failure.

“It is like a weapon, a tool of change. If we want to fight, this option is available,” she said.

Granted the Makerfield parliamentary seat has elected Labour MPs for yonks, but just a matter of weeks ago, at the local elections, Reform UK were dominant in this collection of towns broadly to the south of Wigan – places like Abram, Hindley, Orrell and Winstanley.

With this year’s theme as ‘Red card to child labour: Fair play for children, decent work for adults’, the campaign for World Day Against Child Labour advocates for stronger action on quality education, social protection, decent work, stronger laws and enforcement across the world, as well as other measures that address the root causes of child labour.

A survey in 2022 by the National Bureau of Statistics in collaboration with the International Labour Organisation and the Federal Ministry of Labour and Employment of Nigeria revealed that about 24.67 million children in Nigeria, who represent 39.2 per cent of the country’s youth, aged 5 to 17, are engaged in child labour. About 22.9 per cent of the children are engaged in hazardous work. 

The Child Rights Act of 2023, a legislation that protects children and young adults in Nigeria, frowns at the involvement of children in any form of labour that is harmful to their development. While the minimum age for employment is 15, the Act states that the work must not interfere with the children’s education.

According to the Child Rights Act, no child must lift or move anything heavy that might affect their physical health or social development. Also, no child must be employed in an industrial setting that is not registered as a technical school or similar approved institution.

The administration of US President Donald Trump has proposed new tariffs of up to 12.5 percent on imports from 60 economies after determining they had failed to curb trade in goods made with forced labour, an assertion that was rejected by US trading partners.

The proposal from the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR), issued late on Tuesday, comes from a Section 301 unfair trade practices investigation designed to help rebuild US President Donald Trump’s emergency tariffs, struck down by a US Supreme Court decision in February.

Despite laws banning them, the products of forced labour are deeply embedded in supply chains across the world. European lawmakers bristle at the accusation that the region is less effective than the US at curbing the trade in such goods, with one describing the US findings as “utterly absurd”. Business leaders said the US move created more confusion for companies.

The USTR proposed 10 percent additional duties on imports from Canada, Ecuador, the European Union, Indonesia, Mexico, Pakistan, Argentina, Bangladesh, Cambodia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Malaysia, Taiwan and Britain. The USTR said all had plans or partial schemes in place.

The trade agency said it would impose additional duties of 12.5 percent on the remaining 45 countries that it investigated. These include China, India, Nigeria, Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, Australia and New Zealand.

“The failure of our most important trading partners to address the importation of goods made with forced labour is unacceptable,” US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said in a statement. “This creates a dynamic where American workers are forced to compete globally on an unlevel playing field.”

The USTR said it would accept public comments on the proposed tariffs and other remedies through July 6, with a public hearing scheduled for July 7.

The announcement comes ahead of the July 24 expiration of a 10 percent temporary tariff imposed by the Trump administration on February 20, the day the Supreme Court struck down Trump’s tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. It also shows how determined the Trump administration is about building a wall of tariffs around the US economy, the world’s largest, despite repeated setbacks in court.

After the loss in the Supreme Court, Trump turned to another law to impose temporary 10 percent tariffs globally. But those stopgap levies expire July 24. And a specialised trade court ruled last month that they, too, were illegal – though the government can continue collecting them while that case works its way through the courts.

Unjustified tariffs

The European Commission said the tariffs were unjustified and reiterated its commitment to the trade deal sealed with Washington last year.

Bernd Lange, the chair of the European Parliament’s trade committee, which voted on Tuesday to accept that trade deal, said the new tariffs were expected, but said the results of the US investigation were still “utterly absurd” given a 2024 EU law to ban imports of forced labour products.

“The impression is increasingly emerging that a tariff measure is sought first, and only then is a suitable legal justification found,” he said. However, he added that the key question would be whether the additional tariffs would exceed those agreed between both sides last July.

The US’s largest trading partner, the EU, agreed last July to accept tariffs of 15 percent on a broad range of its exports. In its report, the USTR said the EU anti-forced labour measures only came into force in December 2027 and lacked key elements.

It was unclear whether the proposed tariffs – which the US release described as “additional duties” – would come on top of levies agreed in bilateral deals signed with the US.

Britain said it was in regular talks with the US and was taking action to tackle forced labour. It added that the preferential access to US markets that it had negotiated for UK businesses remained in place.

Mexico said that goods that were compliant under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) would be exempt from the new tariffs.

Taiwan said it was “hopeful and confident” that the final results would reflect agreements already reached, securing relatively preferential treatment.

Beijing, facing 12.5 percent tariffs, said that it opposed all forms of unilateral tariffs and that there was no forced labour in China. India, confronted with the same rate, said it was engaged with Washington on the Section 301 proceedings, noting the proposed tariffs were not final.

“There will be deep concerns in the international business community that the US [forced labour law could] become a global template,” said Andrew Wilson, deputy secretary general of the International Chamber of Commerce.

“Anyone can make a claim, get a shipment impounded and the company has to prove no forced labour in supply chain.”

Certain exemptions

The USTR said it would exempt from tariffs products including energy, rare earths and some other metals, beef, coffee, certain fruits and vegetables, pharmaceuticals, organic chemicals and aircraft parts.

It also said it was proposing a textile mechanism that would allow for a certain volume of apparel and textile imports to enter the US at a reduced tariff rate, without giving details.

The ICC’s Wilson said the list of exemptions, stretching for more than 76 pages, suggested sensitivities over the potential cost-of-living hit to food and other goods with known forced-labour risks.

“It doesn’t make sense if the object of this is to enhance controls on modern slavery,” he said.

MISBEHAVING Brits could be slapped with a permanent flight ban under new Labour rules.

Labour Ministers are currently looking at establishing a blacklist to stop abusive behaviour towards cabin crew and disruption to travel.

This includes considering how information about drunk and abusive passengers could be shared between airlines.

Currently, if you misbehave on a flight you can be banned by the airline you are travelling with – but other airlines would not know this.

If the new rules were to go ahead, it would mean that public officials could keep information about passengers, including a history of any bad behaviour during flights.

In an airport setting, public officials would likely include police, border force officers and immigration officers.

Read more on travel inspo

TRAVEL TIP

The £2.99 SIM hack that can save Brits HUNDREDS abroad

CHEAP BREAKS

UK’s best 100 cheap stays – our pick of the top hotels, holiday parks and pubs

The official would then warn an airline if the passenger was trying to check in with them.

Then, the airline could decide whether or not they want the passenger travelling with them.

The new system would be compliant with data protection rules, so no new legislation would need to be created for the rules to be introduced.

Having said this, data protection rules don’t allow airlines to share information about travellers, hence the need for a public official.

It comes as the number of drunken and violent incidents on planes has risen in recent years.

Earlier this month, a drunk woman believed to be British lunged at another passenger, causing chaos on an easyJet flight.

A government source said: “Everyone should be able to enjoy a pint at the airport, but anti-social behaviour on flights is totally unacceptable.

“It threatens the safety of passengers and crew, and disrupts hard-earned holidays.

“There are already tough laws in place to deal with offences committed on flights, but we are exploring with industry how we can better address this issue, ensuring we crack down on people who persistently cause chaos.

“Everyone should be able to fly without fuss.”

Tim Alderslade, Chief Executive of industry body Airlines UK, said: “UK airlines have a zero-tolerance approach to disruptive behaviour.

“Additional measures for the most serious cases of disruption, including the creation of a national ban list, are an important next step in ensuring a tiny minority of passengers cannot disrupt air travel for the majority.

“We welcome the government’s support for further action and will work closely with ministers on delivering the right solutions.”

According to LBC, Phil Ward, Chief Operations Officer of Jet2, also said the airline would support new rules of sharing passenger information between airlines.

He said: “The creation of a national database will mean that, as well as being banned from flying with us, disruptive passengers can also be banned from flying with other UK airlines.”

In a recent YouGov survey of 5,000 adults, 37 per cent said they supported the proposal for new rules, with 38 per cent saying they somewhat supported it.

Only 11 per cent opposed.

Being drunk on a flight is a criminal offence and can lead to a fine of up to £5,000 and two years in prison.

A meeting will be held later this month where industry leaders will discuss the plans.

The Sun’s Head of Travel shares her thoughts

LISA Minot, The Sun’s Head of Travel, shares her thoughts:

Plans to blacklist drunk and abusive passengers on a nationwide database can’t come soon enough.

Onboard incidents have skyrocketed in recent years and a full ban on those found guilty across all airlines would be the kind of punishment that would have real consequences.

At the moment, while one airline can ban a passenger for life, data protection means other airlines are not alerted.

Having seen the chaos a drunken passenger can wreak myself on a flight from Cape Verde back to the UK anything that will show disruptive passengers there are real consequences is a good move.

Ryanair boss Michael O’Leary has repeatedly called for a ban on passengers drinking in departure lounges but why should the vast, innocent majority pay for the sins of a tiny minority?

This proposal is a much more sensible way of ensuring planes are not turned into battlegrounds without punishing the law-abiding passengers.