Migrant workers win big with Saudi pact
View(s):Amidst the buzz over doubtful economic data, mergers involving banks and finance companies, attacks on Christian churches, etc … a landmark labour pact between Sri Lanka and Saudi Arabia didn’t get the public attention it deserved.
The country’s economy runs virtually on the sweat and tears of Sri Lanka’s overseas migrant workers but this segment of the population gets little public focus apart their remittances and the negative aspects of migration.
More than a million Sri Lankans, 48 per cent women, work mostly in the Middle East. Last year they remitted an estimated US$6.7 billion, up from $6 billion in 2012.
It is the single largest foreign revenue earner for the country and has helped to overcome many economic issues in the country.Remittances or migrant workers help to reduce the current account deficit and reduce pressure on fewer jobs at home. Remittances are projected to rise to $9 billion in 2016 but such growth depends on a number of factors. Prof. S.S. Colombage, a retired Central Banker in an article on this page, says that continuation of remittance inflows largely depends on the politico-economic conditions in the host countries such as their political ideologies, economic growth, employment policies and attitude towards foreign workers. In that context the recent Sri Lanka-Saudi Labour pact is a step forward in the battle for proper working conditions and protection against sexual harassment and intimidation against female domestics.
The labour pact comes in the backdrop of last year’s beheading of 17-year old Sri Lankan domestic maid Rizana Nafeek by Saudi authorities after the young woman accidentally choked a child to death during feeding time.
The latest agreement signed on January 13 is said to cover 12 categories of domestic workers including housemaids, drivers, cleaners and waiters.
Under the agreement, Sri Lankan workers need not surrender their passports to their sponsors. They have the right to retain their travel papers.
Salaries are to be remitted to their bank accounts unlike the long-standing tradition of payment by cash, Saudi newspaper Arab News reported. Workers are also able to end their contract after two years if they wish to leave.
The agreement also has provision for the labour contract to be in a language understood by the worker and that they should be made aware of their rights when being employed in Saudi. The inability to understand the contract, in Arabic, was the biggest issue in the Nafeek case.
Saudi media said the country has also signed similar labour pacts, protecting domestic workers’ rights, with India and the Philippines and is in similar discussions with other major labour exporting countries such as Indonesia, Nepal, Vietnam and Cambodia.
The right to retain one’s passport or travel documents was one of the biggest campaigns by migrant worker rights’ groups. Often workers, either unable to stomach harassment by an employer or not paid due wages, leave their sponsor’s home and seek other jobs. However without a passport, these workers are deemed ‘illegals’ and can be deported at any time.
In recent times the focus of Sri Lankan authorities has been to reduce the number of female domestic workers going abroad due to the issues they face overseas and the social breakdown in the family in their absence. Policies are now devised to encourage more skilled male migration and in the case of female domestic workers, to be armed with a technical qualification that would elevate their status and improve their understanding of workplace equipment and customs.
However in the hurry to reduce female migration in the unskilled labour category, the Government introduced a discriminatory rule that women seeking employment abroad must get permission from their spouse and family members. While the intention was to ensure the children of a departing worker would have a proper, caring environment at home (in the worker’s absence), making it compulsory and a rigid rule stirred protests from rights activists. And rightly so! Women and men have equal rights as enshrined in the Constitution including the freedom of movement. Rather than making it a guideline for travel and highlighting the importance of the mother being the integral part of the household, the Government imposed conditions in direct violation of constitutional rights. The Supreme Court however didn’t think so, rejecting a fundamental rights application by an aggrieved worker who complained that her rights had been violated by the compulsory requirement of a letter from her spouse to go abroad for employment.
This is not the first time the authorities have mucked up policies in foreign employment. Sometime back mothers with young children were to be barred from working abroad but that policy appeared to have been abandoned. Then there was a proposal for migrant workers to wear uniforms when going abroad which, had it been implemented, would have embarrassed workers on departure at the airport. There are also proposals to increase the permissible age for females going abroad as domestic workers.
Arguably some of these proposals are in the interests of the women concerned but unfortunately are not properly handled or enforced. Rules are forced on women, not men, often raising issues of rights and discrimination.
Having said that, the family unit is built around the mother and the absence of this individual could create many issues particularly for young children. Their education is affected; they miss the care and comfort of a mother and are sometimes subject to abuse by another member of the household or a close relative. Thus a proper caring mechanism for families where the mother is abroad is no doubt essential but this needs to be done in a manner not infringing on the rights of the individual.
One hopes the Saudi labour pact would pave the way for similar agreements in other labour-receiving countries. Condusive working arrangements in countries would help to address more effectively other issues at home like creating a caring mechanism for families when the mother is overseas.