E-Paper
Employer buy-in key to Karnataka’s Domestic Workers Welfare Bill
This article is authored by Divya Ravindranath and Antara Rai Chowdhury, researchers, School of Human Development, IIHS, Bengaluru.
Paid domestic work is indispensable to the functioning of urban households in India. From the labour market perspective, it is a crucial source of livelihood for women from vulnerable families in cities. Yet, the sector remains precarious for domestic workers, because of insecure employment and low wages that fail to keep up with the rising costs of living in the city. In such circumstances, social security, such as pension or insurance is essential to prevent deprivation, and offer protection from uncertainties. The recently announced Karnataka Domestic Workers (Social Security and Welfare) Draft Bill, 2025 seeks to address these challenges by extending labour rights and employment-linked social security to the domestic work sector.
Previously, states like Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra have taken up similar efforts. However, their coverage remains low. The success of the Karnataka Draft Bill will depend on its ability to establish transparent and simplified processes for collecting the ‘welfare fee’ from direct employers, agencies, and platforms, and ensuring its disbursement to workers through the proposed social security board. The Bill currently outlines that the Board will facilitate provisions such as accident insurance, enrolment in Employees’ State Insurance Corporation (ESIC), medical expenses, maternity benefits, financial assistance for children's education, pension, and funeral assistance.
However, for any employment-related social security scheme to succeed, there must be a clearly recognised employer-employee relationship. In this sector, households that employ domestic workers rarely identify themselves as ‘employers’, or those working in and for their homes as ‘workers’. Without an ‘employment agreement’, domestic work remains informal, outside the ambit of legal regulation and social security. Resolving this is critical for the success of the Bill.
In 2021, the Indian Institute for Human Settlements (IIHS) and the International Labour Organisation (ILO) conducted a study to understand employer perceptions. A survey of 3,000 households in Bengaluru employing domestic workers, supplemented by in-depth interviews with 300 employers across income groups, explored what they think about employment agreement and registration, extending social security to workers, and their willingness to contribute to a social security fund for domestic workers.
On registration, employers expressed hesitation for two main reasons: some opposed the idea as it could lead to state monitoring of employment practices in private homes; others cited inertia, viewing documentation and paperwork as a burden. The Bill should, therefore, clarify that registration is a step toward ensuring social security, not surveillance. If employer-worker registration is the entry point for social protection, its design must centre transparency and simplified processes to ensure trust and uptake among employers.
While giving financial support or credit for education or during illness, injury or maternity to domestic workers may appear common among many households, the survey found that fewer than half of the employers believed it was their responsibility. Such support was ad hoc and uneven, and employers framed them as benevolence rather than workers’ entitlements. Such practices also perpetuate employer control over workers, compelling them to work under sub-optimal conditions to maintain access to informal financial assistance. This underscores the need for a state-led welfare system that guarantees uniform access to all domestic workers.
When asked about a formal social security system, a majority of employer households agreed, acknowledging both the inadequacy of current salaries in meeting workers’ needs and the importance of social security for a life of dignity. However, there was less consensus on who should bear the cost. Many employers said they would participate if the State took the lead in contributions. Among those willing to contribute to the Board, some suggested a share of the worker's salary (5-20%), while others proposed fixed amounts between ₹250 and ₹500 a month. Yet, mistrust in the government's ability to deliver benefits efficiently tempered this willingness, a valid concern given the experience of the construction workers’ welfare board, which has accumulated thousands of crores of rupees that remain inadequately disbursed. To avoid a similar outcome, the state must dedicate resources to ensure a robust system that delivers benefits to workers on time.
The study suggests that the employers’ positive outlook on the need for extending social security to domestic workers can be leveraged to power registrations. The current non-wage support employers already provide could be channelled to finance a more structured and sustainable social protection programme for domestic workers, but it may not be feasible to rest the whole design on it as yet. Instead of restricting itself to a mere facilitation mechanism, the state should contribute alongside employers to standardise benefits across workers.
A welfare fund cannot rest on a few willing households; it requires broad compliance supported by trust in public administration. Domestic workers have long asked for what should be theirs by right: a social security fund to protect them from risks. If implemented well, this Bill could mark a turning point in how we value care and domestic work in our cities.
This article is authored by Divya Ravindranath and Antara Rai Chowdhury, researchers, School of Human Development, IIHS, Bengaluru.
