The employment guarantee bill, passed by the Lok Sabha in August 2005 guarantees employment for one hundred days every year to every rural household, at minimum wage. The act is a significant one �with the government for the first time acknowledging that it has responsibility towards providing some measure of employment protection to the citizens.

The first part of this series carried the salient features of this bill. This bill has been welcomed by all in its intent � in that the state is now acknowledging its responsibility in supporting employment opportunities to the people. However, the bill that has been passed has raised some concerns about the rural empowerment that was promised and how the current legislation might have diluted those promises.

1. Employment is guaranteed to one adult per household below the poverty line, irrespective of household size. Several issues arise because of this:
a. The central government proposes to fix wage rates, at a minimum rate of Rs 60 per day. At this rate, families with only one earning member would still remain under the poverty line ($1/person/day). Wages at Rs. 60/ day � amounting to Rs. 6000 per year, would not be sufficient to provide for an entire family.
b. Also, till the central government notifies different wage rates for different areas, the state governments are free to pay their own statutory minimum wage for agricultural/rural workers minimum wage rate under the programme ( ranging from Rs. 25 per day in Nagaland to Rs. 134 / day in Kerala ), which would mean people from some states would have to sustain themselves and their families under even tighter conditions. Delays by the centre in setting wage rates would further aggravate this situation.
c. Further, with only one adult member from a household getting guaranteed work under the scheme - the selection of the actual beneficiary of the scheme potentially can cause friction, discontent in the family. Though the act does mandate that at least one third of the beneficiaries of the scheme shall be women who have registered for employment, it is feared that given family dynamics, many women will not be allowed to register for the scheme.

2. People shall be employed under this scheme for doing manual, unskilled labour. However, there is no provision for training these people to upgrade their skills, so that they need not be permanently reliant on such projects. The original draft of the bill did call for providing training for these labourers, as far as possible; that clause is not included in the final Act.
3. There is no provision in the final act for employment of citizens with disabilities, though there was a clause to that effect in the original draft.
4. Finances:
a. The scheme would cost about Rs 40,000 crore annually, with the State governments funding about 10% of the costs. It is not clear how many states will be able to foot the bill on their own, given their fiscal conditions. Also, there is no provision for a dedicated fund to generate funds for this scheme at a sustained level.
b. By the anti-corruption clause introduced in the act, the government may order stoppage of funds to the scheme if there are complaints about improper fund utilization. While the intent of this provision is reasonable and ostensibly aims at preventing corruption, it can be misused and funds may be stopped at slightest the slightest suspicion of corruption, which would ultimately result in no work for the people. More stringent monitoring and transparency clauses need to be in place to help counter corruption in he first place.
5. Implementation:
a. The administrative structure outlined by the act is similar to the Maharashtra Employment Guarantee Scheme model. No major administrative reform has been suggested to increase efficiency in implementation of this act. It is feared that states with histories of bad governance will not be able to provide the empowerment envisioned by the act, within the time frame set by it.
6. Redressal / Corruption check mechanisms �
a. One of the biggest fears of failure or inefficacy of this scheme is vast opportunities for corruption and siphoning of funds. With the Maharashtra Employment Guarantee Scheme recently suffering a Rs 9-crore scam in Solapur district , similar apprehensions about the national act naturally arise. The redressal mechanism against contravention charges laid down by the act at Rs. 1000 are too mild and need to be stiffer. An independent monitoring entity, transparency in muster rolls (which must be made available free of cost), public awareness, local agitations can check abuses of the system.

- Ranjana Ghosh

Related Links
Right To Work Campaign
Rozgar Adhikar Yatra among Kols of Shankargarh
Right to Information Movement Receives Legitimacy in Hardoi
Imposition of Contract system in Fisheries and PFF Struggle