Advocating for Homeworkers’ Protection in Thailand
Foundation for Labour and Employment Promotion (Homenet Thailand)
Editor’ s Note: Following are summaries of policy briefs produced by Homenet Thailand for the Social Protection in Asia Project (SPA) policy research and network building program funded by the Ford Foundation and the International Development Research Center (IDRC). These briefs have the following titles 1) The Advocacy for Homeworker Protection Act in Thailand; 2) Making Universal Health Coverage Schemes More Effective to Solve the Informal Workers’ Health Problems; and 3) Extending Social Security Cover to Informal Workers is a Must.
Thailand has not yet ratified the ILO Convention 177 on Home Work. However, through the advocacy initiatives of the Foundation for Labour and Employment Promotion and the Network of Informal Labour since 1998, issues concerning informal economy and home-based work have gained better recognition. As a result, national government agencies responsible for social and economic planning have been looking at ways by which the protection of informal economy workers can be incorporated in laws and policies.
Homeworkers’ Protection Bill
In 2002, Homenet Thailand, in collaboration with academics, lawyers, human rights activists and labour NGOs, drafted the Development and Protection of Homeworkers Act with three major intentions: (1) to properly uphold fundamental rights of homeworkers; (2) to set out measures for capacity building of workers and their organization; and (3) to encourage all parties concerned to take part in developing policy and laws with emphasis on balancing the interests of employers, homeworkers and general public and to provide for sustainable employment.
Homenet Thailand has continued to push for the enactment of a law that will extend special legal protection to homeworkers-- far better than what the Ministerial Regulation on the Protection of Homeworkers B.E. 2547 (2004) had to offer. The said regulation had provisions incompatible with ILC 177, and was not implemented satisfactorily.
In consideration of Homenet Thailand’s advocacy, the Department of Labor Protection and Welfare drafted the Homeworkers’ Protection Bill in 2005, obtained the cabinet’s approval in principle, and this was submitted for consideration by the Council of State, 24 April 2007. Unfortunately, the political turmoil in 2008 and early 2009, which has led to the quadruple changes in Thailand’s government, stalled the process. But on September 3, 2009, the parliament agreed to read the draft Homeworkers’ Protection Bill which will hopefully be debated upon leading to its approval next year. Though the draft Homeworkers’ Protection Bill covers some issues
being pushed by homeworkers like occupational safety, health, andworking environment, and gender equity, Homenet Thailand strongly feels that key topics need to be clarified before the bill is passed: 1) protection concerning minimum wages; 2) protection from expenses incurred in the purchase of equipment (particularly true in the case of HBWs); 3) collective liability of subcontractor (up to the first level); 4) workers’ development as lawful right, (not a management option); 5) workers’ organizing rights including the right to build a labor relations system; and 6) Homework Committee regulations concerning labour inspection and complaints must be developed to promote community and civil society participation instead of being limited within the confines of Labor Protection Act B.E. 2541 (1998).
Addressing the Health Issues of Informal Workers
The Universal Health Coverage Scheme (UHCS) was put in place in 2002. Historically, it was a product of sustained advocacy work of 11 networks (Formal and Informal Labor Networks, women, handicapped, farmers, slum dwellers, consumers, seniors, children and youth, ethnic groups, etc) who drafted the People Sector’s Act on the Universal Health Coverage Schemes.
Thaksin Shinnawatra applied the concept of UHCS as his party’s policy and won the 2001 general election. The National Health Security Act B.E. 2545 was passed in 2002, through which the state accepts the obligation to allocate part of tax collection to the National Health Security Fund and thereby ensures that all Thai people have access to health services. Even though the majority of Thailand’s population (about 47 million people) can currently access the UHCS, there are still some who have not yet been provided with these rights - those without the 13-digit identity cards, those living along the borders, uprooted migrants, and the elderly.
Among the informal workers who are entitled access to the UHCS, there are those who suffer from specific health problems and are exposed to the risks and consequences of work-related diseases. These groups have not accessed the needed healthcare from primary health service units because they are non-target groups for local health service government offices and, accordingly, are not included in the local health promotion and
prevention schemes. At the same time the National Health Security Office (NHSO) has not recognized this inaction and has not formulated any policy in response to informal workers’ health issues.
The NHSO should now formulate guidelines to deal with the problem. With the informal labor sector as key target group, budget for health promotion and disease prevention by the primary health units, should be appropriated. The NHSO should also require one representative for each risk target group of informal workers to sit in local health security committees to participate in the formulation of local health programs and respond to local health issues. Moreover, identity cards can be substituted for the smart health golden cards to ensure that every hospital can be accessed for health care. Independent health units should be established to investigate non-compliance with Article 50 of Act B.E. 2545.
The networks referred to earlier are now active in research, reviewing outcomes of UHCS policy, promoting participation in formulating health programs, especially at local level, and advocating for integration of OSH in health care systems.
Extending Social Security to Informal Labor
More workers' groups have joined the campaign to extend social security to informal labor, which in 2008 comprised 63.7% of all workers. The Social Security Office (SSO) set up the Office for the Development of Social Security. Under Section 40 of the Social Security Act and since May 2008 , the Office has waged campaigns to encourage informal labor and those between the ages 15-60, who are not protected under the social security system, to apply as self-insured persons and to pay the contributions of 3,360 Baht per year. They shall be entitled to three benefits; namely, maternity, invalidity and death. But the proposal has failed to convince the informal sector. Hence, a subcommittee to develop social security under Section 40 of the Social Security Act was organized to include members of the Social Security Committee, SSO, Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Public Health, academics, informal sector labor network leaders, and Homenet.
On 19 December 2008 , the subcommittee resolved to revise Section 40 , as follows:
The self-insured person can pay 3,360 Baht as the contribution per year in two installments in January and July and shall be entitled to five benefits: Maternity, Sickness, Invalidity, Death, Old Age. Again, discrepancies between the benefit packages proposed by the Section 40 development subcommitee and the demands of the informal sector networks, were identified.
The voluntary self-insurance schemes demand high risks in management which may affect overall stability and security of the Fund.
Annual 3,360 baht contribution for five benefits—compensation for loss of income due to sickness, invalidity, death, maternity, and old age- does not create a strong enough incentive for informal workers to insure themselves. Moreover, unemployment and child benefits are also two major challenges confronting the informal sector.
The state’s failure to make contributions shows a lack of interest in servicing the need of informal workers, and reflects a lack of equality between workers in the formal and informal economy.
Contributions made at the same universal rate do not reflect the mutual help that people in society should provide each other and is in breach of the essence of social security.
Very clearly, while the government has displayed its intent to accommodate informal sector demands, essential concerns are yet to be met.
|
