In the months following on from the Tazreen Factory fire and the collapse of the Rana Plaza, international scrutiny of Bangladesh's RMG industry has intensified. Working conditions have been criticised, accords have been signed by global retailers, trading privileges with the USA on certain products have been suspended, factories have been inspected and legislation has been reviewed. As a result of such scrutiny, generous cheques have been given by the Government, the BGMEA and foreign buyers to a few of the workers affected by the accidents. Yet, till date, there still remain several hundred injured workers and relatives of those who remain missing, who have yet to receive any form of compensation.
In many countries, victims of such workplace accidents would have been able to take advantage of insurance schemes. In Bangladesh, laws pertaining to group insurance have long remained in the books, but they have yet to become a reality for the country's RMG workers. The recently passed Labour (Amendment) Act, 2013, has done little to ameliorate the situation.

Workers' Insurance Scenario in Bangladesh
Pursuant to the amended Section 99 of the Labour Act, 2006, it is compulsory for there to be group insurance for establishments where there are more than 100 permanent workers. Previously, this figure was 200. Group insurance allows workers to claim up to Tk. 1,00,000 and Tk. 1,25,000 for death and permanent total disablement respectively. According to Badrul Ahsan (Financial Express-BD, 23 December, 2012), depending on the number of workers and working conditions, each owner would only have to pay between Tk. 12,500 to Tk, 1,00,000 per annum for such insurance. In spite of there being a legal requirement to obtain group insurance and its relative affordability, more than 1200 export-oriented RMG factories, including the Rana Plaza factories, have not obtained group insurance as of November, 2012.
The BGMEA also provides group insurance for their member factories, whereby employees get Tk. 1 lakh in compensation if there is an accident. However, according to Sajjadur Rahman (The Daily Star, 29 April, 2013) this insurance only covers 20 workers per factory. This is clearly insufficient as the vast majority of export-oriented RMG factories, like those in the Rana Plaza, have far more than 200 workers, even according to the BGMEA's own records.
This is also the reason why the provision of the recent Amendment, reducing the numerical requirement for group insurance to a 100, is hardly of any great consequence for RMG exporting factories, since most of them employ more than 200 workers. For this law to be properly enforced what will be necessary is further elucidation of how the size of factory workforces will be determined, who will be responsible for ensuring that insurance is being obtained by companies and the sanctions that will be imposed if they are not. Given the chronic shortage of qualified building inspectors and the lack of a comprehensive database of all RMG factories, monitoring such obligations will be an uphill task.
In lieu of insurance, workers or their families who do not receive charitable compensation have to take recourse to legal proceedings in labour or civil courts, a hardly desirable option given the stress and delays incumbent in such a process. Therefore, to ensure swift and equitable compensation, the insurance scheme available for workers needs to be re-evaluated.

Workers' Insurance: A comparative view
Our legislators could perhaps draw inspiration from other social-democratic countries like Australia, where the State of Victoria has put in place an insurance system where most employers have to pay a percentage of the total remuneration they give their employees to an independent authority, which covers the costs of benefits if their workers become injured as a direct result of their work. These benefits include weekly benefit payments, medical treatment, and in the event of a serious injury, lump sum compensation. If the employee suffers a work-related death, then their dependents receive funeral expenses, family counseling services, lump sum payments, weekly pensions for a fixed number of years and damages. As the premiums employers have to pay are calculated on the basis of the 'risk' each industry entails and the number of persons employed, the distribution of the financial burden is not too onerous. Such a scheme incentivises lowering industry risk and makes the purchase of insurance compulsory; whereby severe penalties are imposed on employers if they do not join the scheme and their employees get injured in the line of work. Similarly, if premiums are not paid or if premiums are not paid promptly or if employers provide incorrect/malfeasant self-assessments so as to underpay their premiums, strict sanctions are enforced. This has a considerable impact in ensuring equitable relations among employers and employees, making non-compliance unprofitable and compensating the insurance scheme of the funds it has been deprived of.
Alternatively, recently in Brazil, Occupational Accident Insurance (Seguro de Acidente do Trabalho) was implemented, whereby those employers that cause accidents or do little to prevent accidents are charged a higher rate of taxes than those who invest in accident prevention. Along with providing compensation, this has ensured a shift from 'damage control' to prevention and rehabilitation of workplace accidents.
If it is felt that the requirement to pay for insurance should not be imposed solely on employers, a self-financing model, similar to that extant in India could be considered. The Employee State Insurance Act 1948 provides a wide variety of benefits to all workers in establishments and who earn less than 6,500 per month. The financial resources for this scheme are not raised from the taxpayer or solely from the employer, but through mandatory contributions from employees and employers as a fixed percentage of wages per month: 1.75% and 4.75% respectively. Among other benefits, these 'premiums' go towards compensation following workplace accidents in the form of sickness, disablement and dependent benefits and if the worker happens to die, the dependents can receive a family pension, all in cash. While the sums paid out might not be considerable, it is at least a form of assistance that is not contingent on noblesse oblige, where an honourable master takes care of his injured servant, or public charity, but is instead an organic feature of the industry.
After perusing such examples, it becomes apparent that the existing labour legislation in Bangladesh, even as amended, does not provide for an adequately comprehensive insurance coverage, as it not only glosses over how the group insurance scheme will be enforced, but does not address the broader questions as to whether the lump sum payments derived from insurance claims are commensurate to the loss incurred, how social and professional rehabilitation of injured workers can be ensured and future workplace accidents prevented. As a country that aspires in its Constitution to attain “a just and egalitarian society, free from the exploitation of man by man”, it would be becoming of our legislature to pass a workers' insurance law that upholds such principles and is equitable for those who are the backbone of our economy.

The writer is Barrister-at-Law.