The notification declares that domestic workers should be expected to work only an eight-hour day - overtime would have to be paid at double the rate. Overall, the minimum wage for eight hours a day of work - including cooking, washing and babysitting, according to the notification - would be Rs 5,642 per month. Naturally, as with all minimum wage calculations, payment in kind - for food and clothes, for example - is not taken into account. That will need to go on top of and in addition to the minimum wage. So far, so good. However, the Rajasthan labour department has, according to reports, gone much further than it needed to. It has also mandated exactly what sort of work qualifies for the minimum wage. It has stipulated that labour inspectors will stand by to conduct surprise checks; that having more than four individuals in a household with domestic help would increase the minimum wage by 10 per cent per additional individual; that employers currently paying more than the minimum wage will not be allowed to reduce the amount they pay; and so on. This is dangerous. It appears that, once again, a regulation with progressive intent will be scuppered by bureaucrats trying to get it to achieve too much. There is no obvious reason why the labour department should not just set a minimum wage per hour and maximum work hours, with a suitable modification for live-in help, and leave it at that. All the additional clauses will just make the regulation harder to follow, tougher to enforce, easier to game - and open the door to harassment and corruption.
Certainly, it could be argued that any regulation would be difficult to enforce in this sector. After all, can labour inspectors be expected to march into people's homes? The nature of the enforcement will have to be clearly watched - it has not been exemplary thus far. However, the general direction of this policy is understandable. Domestic workers are entitled to the same protections as those in any other sector, and Rajasthan is right to seek to give it to them. It would be a pity if bureaucratic over-reach were to compromise such efforts.
Indians' relationship with their "servants" is frequently far too feudal, based on unspoken rights and obligations, with poorly defined contracts that are frequently renegotiated informally by the employer - rarely to the advantage of the employee. This is a sector that can only benefit from professionalisation - indeed from the basic realisation that the relationship in question is one of employer and employee, and no longer that of "master" and "servant". Now, employees in this sector - frequently from out of state - will have legal recourse if they are exploited. But the details need a fresh look. The regulations should be as simple as possible, so that there is no excuse for employers not following them. There should be one rule for live-in employees, another clear rule for part-time employees, and very little else. The government should work to ensure that proof of salary can easily be provided - perhaps by ensuring that such salaries go to Aadhaar-linked bank accounts, which should be easy for employers to help their employees set up. The Centre too is considering framing regulations to address this sector. Rajasthan's regulations, if suitably rewritten for simplicity, could serve as a template.