Migrant workers and lopsided policies

It was a rare occasion this week when the 2007 budget was voted in with a thumping majority with the main opposition United National Party (UNP) backing the government.

Having said that the budget has its plus and minus points much of which has been debated in parliament, through the media or public forums.

However one aspect of the budget appeared to be missing in this whole debate – the minimum wage for overseas employment which has been fixed at US$250 a month from next year.

While employment agencies and workers, obviously, welcome the move to raise the minimum wage level from a current US$125-130 minimum per month, one fails to understand the logic behind this proposal.

The new increase in the minimum wage is over 100 percent and in a competitive market, particularly for housemaids, it is like killing the goose with the golden egg.

More than 60 percent of Sri Lanka’s one million-plus migrant labour force comprises women employed as housemaids across West Asia, Asia and parts of Europe.

Employment agents will concur that the market is gradually shrinking in this important job category as new labour-sending countries emerge as suppliers to West Asian homes.

Unofficial figures show that so far this year 190,000 of all categories of workers have gone abroad on jobs, lower than the 230,000 that found overseas employment in 2005.

Bangladesh recently lifted a ban on women working abroad which is certain to eat into Sri Lanka’s market share with their workers offering to work as housemaids at more competitive rates. There are reports that Saudi Arabia, the biggest market for our workers, has agreed to provide 5,000 visas to Ethiopia, a new labour supplier.

As the supply base increases, wages become competitive and Sri Lanka’s current minimum wage level is just below that of the Philippines which has a minimum rate of US$150.

The Filipinas are however more skilled, have a better knowledge of English and include graduates among its overseas workforce. Trying to demand US$250 for a worker whose skills level falls much below that of the Filipino worker, is asking too much.

Then what would be the logic behind this proposal? Remittances from migrant workers represent the country’s biggest foreign exchange earner but it has raised many social concerns.

Broken families, husbands wasting the hard-earned money from their wives working overseas, incest in the family and children without any proper supervision have been some of the problems that has taken root in our society. This has led to growing calls for the need to reduce the number of women going abroad as domestics and or raise their skills to provide them skills-based employment with decent working conditions. On the other hand the government has been urged to bring in stringent legislation to ensure Sri Lankan workers are not ill-treated, harassed or harmed while in employment essentially in households.

The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) that the government has signed with some West Asian countries is impractical to implement because often the contracted amount – say US$150 – is not what is paid by the employer. And trying to enforce rules, essentially decided here, in another country is a problem.

Coming back to the impractical budget proposal for a minimum wage of US$250 for every worker seeking foreign employment, another issue that budget planners have missed is, what happens to those already employed overseas – more than 800,000.

Will the minimum wage level apply to them too although it’s most unlikely that their employers would agree to a change in the contract? Will they want to return and then get new jobs under the new minimum wage level?

Even the Sri Lanka Bureau of Foreign Employment was unsure this week about the proposal and its only response was that the Labour Minister would hopefully discuss the matter with recruitment companies.

Figures show that less than 10 percent of Sri Lanka’s migrant workers, the skilled and professional categories, get a wage of over $250.

While the government should be applauded for seeking to raise the wage levels of our mothers, fathers, sisters and brothers working abroad, it should also be slammed for presenting a proposal without consulting the industry about its practicality.