Until We Properly Define Home-Based Workers, Their Labour Will Be Ignored

Abstract

Home-based workers do not constitute a homogenous group and are involved in a wide array of work. The article talks on the unclear definition of home-based work which is hazy – particularly when quizzed about whether it is different from domestic work or unpaid care work. The paper concludes by stating that an important section of informal workers are invisibilised, and their needs and issues not taken into account.

Full text

27/03/2019 Until We Properly Define Home-Based Workers, Their Labour Will Be Ignored
https://thewire.in/labour/until-we-properly-define-home-based-workers-their-labour-will-be-ignored 1/11
LABOUR
Until We Properly Dene
Home-Based Workers, Their
Labour Will Be Ignored
Home-based workers do not constitute a homogenous group and are
involved in a wide array of work.
BECOME A
SUPPORTER
POLITICS ECONOMY EXTERNAL AFFAIRS SECURITY LAW SCIENCE SOCIETY CULTURE
OPINION VIDEOS HINDI MARATHI URDU
A woman sews in her room in Ahmedabad. Credit: Thomson Reuters Foundation/Rina Chandran

27/03/2019 Until We Properly Define Home-Based Workers, Their Labour Will Be Ignored
https://thewire.in/labour/until-we-properly-define-home-based-workers-their-labour-will-be-ignored 2/11
Rajib Nandi, Ayesha Datta and Gurpreet Kaur
L A B O U R 16 H OU RS AGO
67
interactions
For most people, the definition of home-based work is hazy – particularly
when quizzed about whether it is different from domestic work or unpaid care
work. This is dangerous, because it means that an important section of
informal workers are invisibilised, and their needs and issues not taken into
account.
A home-based worker is an employee or a self-employed worker who
performs his or her job from home rather than a designated workspace or an
employer’s site. As expected, home-based workers do not constitute a
homogenous group and are involved in a wide array of work.
Within the general category of home-based workers, there are two main types:
piece-rate workers and own-account workers. Although these are not
watertight compartments, as workers tend to move between them, it is
important to distinguish, both conceptually and statistically, these two
categories.
Piece-rate workers (also known as home-workers) receive work from a trader
or a firm, either directly or through subcontractors or intermediaries. They
work as an employee of the contractor and are paid on a piece-rate basis.
These workers do not have any direct contact with the markets for the goods
they produce.
On the other hand, own-account workers are generally in direct contact with
the market and buy their own raw materials. They face competition from
larger and more powerful corporate houses and often do not have access to
credit, except at exorbitant rates of interest.
Whether the women in such households have an active role in market
negotiations or the men have complete control varies from trade to trade, and

27/03/2019 Until We Properly Define Home-Based Workers, Their Labour Will Be Ignored
https://thewire.in/labour/until-we-properly-define-home-based-workers-their-labour-will-be-ignored 3/11
also within one trade depending on intra-household relationships.
Nonetheless, in terms of earning and working conditions, this self-employed
category of home-based workers is not better off than piece-rate workers,
except a few highly skilled trades like embroidery work or phulkari weaving.
We don’t really have a clear idea on the estimated number of home-based
workers in India, although the National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO)
has included home-based workers as a category in their employment and
unemployment surveys since 2005. According to NSSO estimates, in 2011-12
there were 37.4 million home-based workers in India. However, organisations
like HomeNet South Asia or Women in Informal Employment: Globalizing
and Organizing (WIEGO), who have been trying to organise home-based
workers, argue that this is a serious under-representation.
Also read:Will Social Security Become a Reality for Home-Based
Workers?
But this isn’t the biggest worry. Do Indian policymakers recognise the
contributions of home-based workers even within the informal economy?
Many would agree that the answer is ‘no’.
The government and policymakers also do not distinguish between the two
categories of home-based workers. Even the NSSO is culpable here – it
recognises home-based workers as self-employed workers whose workplace is
recognised as ‘at home’. This definition bypasses the role of the contractor,
and at the same time clubs all home-based workers as self-employed. The
right to a decent workplace then loses its importance. Moreover, elements of
subjugation and marginality among home-based workers are not captured in
the NSSO data.
At the same time, the definition coined by the Ministry of Statistics and
Programme Implementation says, “…there is a category of workers who work
at a place of their choice which is outside the establishment that employs
them or buys their product.” This idea of “work at a place of their choice” is
again quite misleading, as it not only deflates the marginalisation of the
worker who works from home because of her vulnerabilities but also inflates
the idea of her ability to make a choice.

27/03/2019 Until We Properly Define Home-Based Workers, Their Labour Will Be Ignored
https://thewire.in/labour/until-we-properly-define-home-based-workers-their-labour-will-be-ignored 4/11
Support The Wire
₹20 ₹200 ₹2400
T & C Privacy
In addition to this, in both the definitions, two complex issues – the economic
contribution of a home-based worker and her identity as a labourer – are
diluted as far as workers’ entitlements are concerned. Even the Ministry of
Labour, while adopting a broader definition of home-based worker and
identifying the basic criteria to define home-based workers for the purpose of
the national policy framework, has somehow failed to include unpaid
contributing family members. Therefore, there is need for a sharper definition
to ensure no home-based worker is left behind.
There is another issue. Often these informal workers move between the
categories of self-employed, sub-contracted, domestic work and street
vending, depending on the availability of work. In the absence of clear
mechanisms, it becomes difficult to identify the invisible middlemen who, as
employers, are supposed to make contribution towards the social security
benefits of the workers. It is then obvious that women home-based workers
will be deprived of any social security benefits under the new labour codes.
The bias that fails to accept the fact that a productive economic job can be
performed from home comes from a patriarchal value system that has always
attached economic value to spaces where men work. It thus reinforces the idea
that work is something that is performed outside the home – in an office,
factory, shop, etc. Any work that is performed at home then cannot be valued
as a ‘worthy’ work.
Unless conscious efforts are made to redefine work, and it is seen through the
lens of labour and not place of work or wages offered, it will be difficult to
bring about a change in recognising home-based workers as part of the
workforce.
Rajib Nandi, Ayesha Datta and Gurpreet Kaur are affiliated with the Institute
of Social Studies Trust, a voluntary and not-for-profit research organisation
based in New Delhi.