The downside of the pandemic has been its impact on the world of work. Work and Covid are antithetical to each other. Work, in most instances, requires interaction, to grow, catch or procure raw material, transform it to a finished good, transport the finished goods, and reach it to consumers. The pandemic however requires isolation to stem its propagation. Thus, in a world where a lockdown on all interactions has been enforced, unemployment has soared. According to the Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy (CMIE), the unemployment rate in India increased from 7.22 percent in January 2020 to 23.48 percent in May 2020 [3] – more than tripling of the unemployment rate in five months. Given the size of the Indian labour market, of around 50 crore job seekers, this translates to around 12 crores jobless at the beginning of opening up of the economy under Unlock 1.0 in June 2020. With the reopening of the economy, the unemployment rate will decline. However it will be some time before a situation of ‘business as usual’ is reached, that is, a stable economy with unemployment rate back to single digits. We need to factor in that the virus is here to stay for an extended period, and there will be periodic localised lockdowns needed to control the spread of the pandemic. These will result in periodic economic shocks disrupting earnings and employment cycles.

 Migrant workers

State response to the situation of economic stagnation has been mixed, and characterised by a confused bag of policy responses, sometimes contradictory in their import. This was particularly noticeable on migration issues, where the Government at the Centre vacillated between recommending migrants to leave cities, to ordering the stoppage of their travel. The result of this seemingly unplanned set of actions was that the most vulnerable in cities were left high and dry, without any savings to pay for accommodation and basic necessities, and with the fear of getting infected. Many were forced to vote with their feet, leaving on all forms of available travel means. The result was the exodus of the hungry and bedraggled multitudes, captured extensively in media reports, both locally and internationally. Even the Supreme Court of India was forced to take cognisance and pass strictures against government handling of this crisis.

There are no clear numbers for exodus. According to the World Bank, around 4 crore workers were impacted by the lockdown in the country [4]. A large proportion of these were migrant workers employed in the informal sector. Given the trauma of their forced exit from cities, it remains uncertain when, and how many migrants would be willing to return. According to Professor Irudaya Rajan at the Centre for Development Studies, around 30 percent of those migrants who left cities might not return [5]. Even if we assume that only a quarter of the estimated 4 crore workers impacted by the lockdown in cities would have fled, there is the possibility of around 30 lakh workers not returning for some time to come. This in turn will impact the economic recovery process, and consequently the ability of the economy to create new jobs.

The increase in population from returnee migrants in the source states will require the creation of new jobs. In particular, rural employment will need to increase, with many migrants returning to the countryside. This is happening while rural economy and employment are also negatively impacted by the pandemic. According to the CMIE, rural India provided employment to 27.6 crore workers on average through 2019-20. However, post lockdown, rural employment declined to 19.7 crore, or a 30 percent decline in usual rural employment [6]. The Central Government in its revival package has provided substantial additional funds under the MGNREGA. However, these additional funds are likely to increase rural employment by only 10 percent [7]. There is therefore, considerable shortage in rural employment, even without taking into account the additional population of returnee migrants.

 Labour reforms

State governments have taken the opportunity to push ahead with competitive labour law ‘reforms’, vying with each other to appear investor friendly. Thus for instance the Uttar Pradesh Temporary Exemption from Certain Labour Laws Ordinance, 2020 suspends most labour laws in the state for a period of three years [8]. It allows the extension of the work-day to 12 hours, and 72 hours per week. This happens at a time when the workforce in factories is being forced into employment, with very little protection against infection and its aftermath. At a time when workers need to be careful to maintain social distancing and hygiene norms, lengthening the work-day will serve to make them less vigilant; when they need to build immunity to fight infection, the extra work burden is likely to make them more susceptible to ailments. The danger will not only be restricted to the individual worker, but all workers in the factory and the community where the worker lives. Similar extension of the working period to 12 hours per day, and 72 hours per week has been brought in Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat and Himachal Pradesh; Punjab, Odisha and Maharashtra have also ‘reformed’ the labour laws in the states, diluting safeguard to workers’ employment rights. The pandemic is a convenient pretext for states to attempt the setting back of the clock on the whole edifice of labour legislation won through decades of worker struggles across the country. These proposed state ‘reforms’ go far beyond the relaxation sought to be brought about by the Indian government through the four Labour Codes. We would recall that the clarion call of the May Day struggle has always been the 8 hour work-day. This is what the state governments and employers seek to dilute under the cover of the pandemic.

At the beginning of the lockdown the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) had on March 29 issued its notification requiring all employers to full wages to their employees through the lockdown period. Many employers refused to pay wages for the months of April and May citing lack of finances. Employers had asked the government to take on the responsibility, or at least substantially subsidise the wages during the lockdown. Suggestions were made to pass on the responsibility to the Employees’ Provident Fund (EPF) and the Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC). The EPF money is already money owed to workers, and the use of these funds to pay wages would be passing on the burden to the workers for their subsistence during the lockdown. Similarly, using the ESIC funds will severely hamper the resources, and hence the ability of the Corporation to continue providing quality health service. The financial ability of the ESIC has already been hampered by the reduction of contribution from employers and employees from 6.5 percent of basic wages to 4 percent from July 2019 [9]. The additional burden of wages to workers, to 3.6 crore workers who were members of the ESIC as on 31^st March 2019 [10] would be upward of Rs.30000 crores per month, assuming a wage level of around Rs.10000 per month. This amount is thrice the actual annual revenue expenditure (direct cost of medicines and treatment plus wages to ESIC employees) for the ESIC for the year 2016-17 [11]. The Supreme Court in its interim Order in May 2020, restrained all action against employers who in violation of the MHA had on March 29 had not paid employees their lockdown period wages. This in effect takes away any teeth from the MHA notification.

 Informal sector

Much discussion in the post Covid scenario has centred around formal sector employment. The situation is very different for workers in the informal sector, who constitute over 90 percent of employment in cities, and almost all rural employment. This sector was already reeling under the shocks of demonetisation, a hastily implemented GST, and a failing economy. Informal sector workers were not covered by the Government requirement that no retrenchment take place and wages continue to be paid by employers. They were left adrift to their own devices. The undocumented among them would not even have managed access to public food. These poorest sections of workers were also the most vulnerable to the pandemic, living in crowded slums with poor sanitation and water facilities. Not for these workers are the norms of social distancing, or constant disinfecting and hand washing. Contract municipal workers keeping cities clean, and Asha workers in the front line of health care including contact tracing, facing the wrath of people while performing their regulatory functions are all examples of those in the forefront of struggle to keep the virus impact in check; many of these workers themselves have inadequate security of employment and health care, while risking their lives and health for paltry wages. Many workers were forced to continue working even during the lockdown. There are anecdotal evidences of domestic workers forced to continue work by employers who held out the threat of no payment without work. Small vendors continued to source and peddle daily necessities, and were among unrecognised front line workers fighting to keep cities alive during the pandemic. The situation in Dharavi slums in Mumbai is typical of the dangers faced by these sections of the population. With no access to secure, institutional health care, they are left to the mercies of overcrowded government health care facilities.

 Impact on women

The burden of dealing with the pandemic would fall disproportionately on women in the house. Women typically are the first to lose jobs and be forced back to their homes at times of crises. Being at home does not mean any decrease in work pressure or harassment. The constant presence of men and children at home is likely to increase domestic work, which in a patriarchal society is primarily the responsibility of women. Any additional care needs, including care of Covid patients at home, will also have to be borne by them. This would be in addition to home based economic activity which women in poorer household would be forced to continue with. Further, they have to bear the brunt of anxiety and frustration among their spouses faced with curtailment and uncertainty in earnings. There are reports of significant increase in domestic violence on women since the start of the pandemic [12].

 The time ahead

What is the situation we can expect in the months to come? Neoliberal wisdom would like to convince us that this was just an episode which the discovery of a vaccine will cure. However, many health professionals from across the globe suggest a new normal where pandemics become more frequent. In the last 25 years, different parts of the world saw outbreaks of the avian flu, SARS, swine flu, MERS, Ebola and Zika viruses [13]. With the spread of globalisation and international travel, the dangers of spread of these pandemics would also increase. The most affected would be the poorest and least protected in society.

In a post Covid scenario, supply chains are likely to contract, both globally and within countries, as companies gear up for minimising disruptions. This also means curtailment of employment opportunities at the bottom of the economic pyramid. It means lowering of bargaining power for workers. In the city of Bangalore, the export garment sector faces the threat of international brands cutting down on orders. Garment companies in India have used the opportunity to drive down Minimum Wage holding out the threat of closure of industry, and also selectively target trade union organisation. One large garment manufacturer, Gokaldas Exports, used the cover of the Disaster Management Act to unilaterally and without any notice enforce layoff in its factory near Mysore, where the trade union was seeking to push for negotiation of a Charter of Demands. The company has pushed ahead despite the Karnataka Labour Department reportedly stating during the conciliation procedures that the layoff without any notice and falling due process is illegal.

Opportunities abroad for migrant workers are likely to decline. Economies and jobs have been badly affected across the globe, with fears of the pandemic pushing governments to build physical and legal walls against migration. Many migrant workers are likely to lose employment and additionally face the trauma of finding a way back home with foreign travel severely curtailed. The difficulties are not likely to end even after returning home. While the Kerala government gears up to cope with the return of a large proportion of the nearly 30 lakh migrants, to ensure the influx does not impact the spread of virus in the state, an additional concern would be how these workers can get reintegrated into the labour force, and what will happen to the migrants from other states who are currently doing the jobs these returnees might now seek to claim.

What should be demands from labour in the circumstances? Workers in the aftermath of the crisis have sought to shorten migratory distances, to reduce the risks of being helplessly moored in distant places with no social protection. There have been demands on governments in the source states, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Orissa and the North Eastern states among others, to increase employment opportunities within the states. Labour movements have to ensure that this does not mean that the states are allowed to dilute labour protection on the pretext of having to incentivise private investment. There have been demands for increasing rural employment opportunities, including increasing outlay to the MGNREGA scheme, and also for a similar urban employment guarantee scheme. The felt an expressed need for universal and government funded health care has been global in the wake of the pandemic. Measures like the Ayushman Bharat using the public-private partnership route are unlikely to provide effective health intervention during the crisis. There have been demands from informal sector unions that health facilities under the ESIC be extended to the informal sector. However, the ESIC coverage is the weakest in the poorer states like UP and Bihar, where the need for health care is the most. These reforms would require substantial increase in government outlay to the social sector. Finally, this also means demand for a more equal society: greater economic equality across regions so that workers do not need to migrate from UP and Bihar to the economically developed southern states; more equal economic distribution between rural and urban regions; greater equality between the formal and informal sector. This requires a change in the neoliberal ideology, which devalues public funding, in favour of private interventions, which places unfettered private enterprise above public cooperation as the motivator of growth.

Meanwhile the spread of Covid continues unabated in the country. Various institutional reports speak of the pandemic peaking anywhere between July and November this year, with uncertainty of how long will it take to taper off. Talks of an effective vaccine are still years away, and then the question of distribution of its benefit across unequal societies still would have to be negotiated. All that can be said is that no predictions are possible with any degree of certainty. The situation of work in the time of Covid will continue to be seriously compromised through the period.

Mohan Mani, Visiting Fellow, Centre for Labour Studies, National Law School of India University, Bengaluru