Treating migrant workers right 

The Committee on Public Enterprises (COPE) recently instructed the Sri Lanka Foreign Employment Bureau (SLFEB) to fund the return of thousands of stranded migrant workers who have been desperate to return home since the outbreak of COVID-19. It is astounding that despite the multitude of appeals that have been made to the Government, and the SLFEB having about Rs. 14 billion in funds, it took this long for such a step. 

Migrant workers, meanwhile, have kept Sri Lanka’s economy ticking, remitting $ 7.1 billion in 2020. It is truly heart rending that even with such a contribution they are still an afterthought to policymakers. 

Not only should the SLFEB and other institutions support the return of workers, but the Government should also redouble efforts to protect migrant workers beyond the virus’ impact. 

Foreign workers make up about 24% of the labour force, and remittances form 33% of the country’s foreign exchange and 8.3% of its GDP. Sri Lanka already has over two million migrant workers, mostly working in Middle Eastern countries, with 52% of them being women. 

These numbers provide the strongest impetus for the Government to get its act together to protect migrant workers.  

The International Labour Organisation (ILO) has consistently called for responsible action by countries of origin to reduce abusive practices and help migrant workers make better choices. Beyond educating migrant workers about unethical and exploitive practices, origin countries should enact legislation and regulations and enforce them to prevent such abuses from taking place and sanction those who have engaged in them.

The ILO insists that where the rights of migrant workers have been violated, all persons involved in the chain of their recruitment and employment should be legally accountable, to prevent workers from being left without any remedy. When such persons cross national borders themselves in committing violations against migrant workers, origin countries must cooperate with transit and destination countries to put a stop to their conduct.

Thus, for example, a migrant worker may be cheated by a local recruiter who represents another recruiter higher on the chain. All those working together in the chain should be held accountable, whether they operate within national borders or across them. Bilateral agreements with destination countries spelling out how responsibilities are to be shared can be a significant means of providing minimum standards and rights for a country’s citizens. Origin countries can negotiate for greater rights, particularly for less-skilled workers, which conform to international standards, with compliance guaranteed by the agreements.  Exploitation can also be reduced by providing access to regular migration and the formal labour market. Agreements can contain provisions on such things as to how origin and destination countries will cooperatively manage pre-departure and return processes, transfer social security earnings or allow portability of pensions.

They can also contain dispute settlement procedures and remedies for violation of rights. These agreements are most effective when they contain specific mechanisms and procedures for solving problems and grievances, such as monitoring missions or joint committees with representatives from the countries involved. 

A range of countries, including Philippines, Egypt, Mexico and Tunisia, are assisting migrant workers to protect their rights through better choices and stronger legislation. Surely it is time for Sri Lanka to do the same.