|
9 DISCUSSION ON THE CHILD
LABOUR PROJECT
|
|
The rehabilitation measure under the MOU deals with only about
10.000 child workers who were employed in the garment sector as
revealed in the 1995 survey, a significantly lower number of children
than thought to be in the factories a year earlier. The vast majority
of child workers were sacked prior to the signing of the MOU and
have been deprived of any kind of rehabilitation measures as mentioned
in the agreement. Nothing has been said about the potential entrants
who would have come every year to work in the garment sector.
Despite of the shortcomings of the project and the negative consequences
for the children that are deprived of the provisions under the MOU,
the ILO considers the project as rather succesfully. The project
is the first initiative in which employers and international organisations
together decided to tackle child labour in a particular sector.
The initiative is considered a pilot project, and is seen as a breakthrough
in the elimination of child labour. The concept of the project is
now copied in other countries, for example in Pakistan in the soccer
ball industry .(1)
According to the ILO, to assume there can be a child labour free sector
in such a short period of just two years, is not realistic. Monitoring
results reveal a decrease in the percentage of factories found with
child labour from 43% in 1995 to 13% in 1997. At least employers realised
that child labour is no longer accepted in the garment industry in
Bangladesh. Losing an export market would have been disastrous for
Bangladesh' economy, as follows the ILO . (2)
Strenghts of the project are the quality of schooling that is above
average and the factory inspection system that seems to work fairly
well . (3) At the other hand, the monthly scholarship is very meagre;
the taka 300 can not outweigh the child workers' opportunity cost
of all occupations. Since the BGMEA contributes to a large extent
of the payments of the stipends to the terminated children, their
interest appears to be in keeping the number of child workers who
enroll in schools as low as possible.
| While being a leading sector, the garment industry is sensitive
to foreign pressure. It is not strange that the threat of
a boycott was taken very seriously by the garment exporters. |
HUMANISING THE PROCESS
The MOU was however introduced quite late. Most dismissals of
children had already occured. Less than one fifth of the children
dismissed from the garment factories had the chance to benefit
from the MOU. This minority was given access to school through
the MOU. Most of the dismissed children moved to even worse and
more dangerous jobs. Dismissing young garment workers made the
child labour situation in Bangladesh worse instead of better.
How can I go to school with an empty stomach?
The elimination of child labour did not automatically
result in the enrolment of children to schools. The MOU would
have been doing more justice if the children could keep their
work in the garment factories half-time while being provided with
education the other half. The children need a job as much as they
need education. But consumer groups and trade unions from the
industrialised countries only accept the complete removal of children
from the garment industry. Bangladeshi employers, fearing a boycott,
could nothing do but to obey .(4)
At the same time, trade unions and other representative
organisations in Bangladesh were excluded from negotiations concerning
the MOU. The BGMEA rejected its first draft because it planned
the participation of NGO's. Trade unions are not allowed to participate
in the implementation of the project either.
The final MOU was likely proposed to meet the demands
of western advocates and the commercial needs of the Bangladeshi
factory owners and the multinationals buying from them while ignoring
what would be best for the children .(5) Even so the Harkin's
Bill was seemingly intended to serve the interests of the rich
countries. Imports of garments from Bangladesh to the US were
regulated under the Multi-Fibre Arrangement. However, Bangladeshi
clothing exports kept on growing. Under the mask of combatting
child labour, the Child Deterrence Act tried to restrict the import
of cheap Bangladeshi clothing.
| The complete removal of children out of the garment factories
may hit upon most on the children in Bangladesh and their
poor families. The economic necessity has not disappeared
by removing the children out of the factories. The children
themselves may not want to be forbidden to work in the factories,
since the alternative might be much worse. So they may well
choose to hide away if inspections to child labour take place.
They are more frightened to find themselves on the street
and out of work |
The experience of Bangladesh illustrates that the
eradication of child labour from the garment factories did more
harm than good. As the MOU is only applicable to one particular
section, i.e. the export sector, it is not concerned with the
problem of child labour in the other sectors of the economy. Even
though labour conditions in the garment industry are bad, exploitative
conditions of work in many areas outside the garment sector remain
unaddressed. Banning all children under 14 years from just one
sector of the economy has led to a movement of child workers from
the garment to the non-garment sector, where conditions are far
worse and where any protection and control are lacking. The MOU
does not attack the main cause of child labour, that is poverty.
It is in no case a solution to the child labour problem in Bangladesh.
-
ILO Midterm Review, 1997
-
ILO Midterm Review, 1997
-
Myers, 1998
- Myers, 1998
- Myers, 1998
|
