The labour market is, for a layperson, one in which workers are available for employment in exchange for a value, in cash or kind. A dominant characteristic of employment in the 20th and in this century, and consequently of the labour market, was that it was structured around the gendered concept of a `male breadwinner`. The male partner, when available in the labour market, could expect full-time paid employment whereas the female partner was expected not to be in the labour market, but to do the unpaid household and family work. This model originated in the industrialised western countries and became predominant in the rest of the world, with the spread of industrialisation.

A concomitant of this employment/labour market model has been the emergence of trade unions, as organisations of workers that represent the interests of their members by negotiating with employers over wages, job security, working conditions, social welfare, etc. Experiences show that trade unions have contributed to the protection of the interests of workers not only by safeguarding their interests in employer-employee relationships but also by advocating human rights, pluralism and transparency in public policy in the republican democracies, and acting as essential checks against the power of the state. Trade unions in countries under colonialism were part of anti-imperialist struggles, organising strategic strikes and providing organised mass support. However, overwhelmingly, trade unions inherited the gender bias of the employment and labour market and assumed the character of being associations of male workers under the leadership of male workers. Even in situations where women in large numbers were part of the workforce in sectors such as agriculture, plantations, mines and textiles in developing and colonial countries, the leadership of the trade unions remained with the men.

The current realisation of the inappropriate nature of representation of women in trade unions should be explored from, broadly, three contexts: one, the changing character of employment and labour market with a marked increase in female labour force participation; two, the question whether trade unions are adequately addressing issues arising out of this phenomenon; and three, the increasing consciousness about gender rights and women`s role in society.

The phenomenon of increased female labour force participation is not beyond controversy. Some hold that the a perceptible increase in female participation in the labour market in developing countries is a long-term trend; and that it may be attributable to improved opportunities for schooling, urban growth, declining fertility rates, new cultural patterns that favour the autonomy of women, a rise in male unemployment and the need for more income as a result of privatisation of public services. Others hold that the increase in female participation in the labour market is not that straightforward as it appears. For instance, women`s workforce participation in India was only 28.3 per cent compared to 54.7 per cent for men in 2004-05. The rural female workforce participation (by usual status) – 32.8 per cent in 1993-94  was actually lower by 0.1 per cent in 2004-05 and the urban female workforce participation increased only by 1.1 per cent points. This could be because women always worked in India, and continue to work, initially in unrecognised household work and later in wage labour in agriculture, textiles, plantations, construction and mines, to list a few of the industries. Meanwhile, the Economic Survey 2007-08 (based on the data provided by the Ministry of Labour & Employment, Director General of Employment and Training) says that between 1991 and 2005, employment in the organised sector did not grow at all. The Compound Annual Growth Rate of employment in the 14-year period has been (-) 0.07 for all workers, (-) 0.48 for male workers and 2.04 for female workers. However, this information should be complemented by the fact that in 2005 only 21.44 million males and 5.02 million females were in the organised sector employment. The NCEUS report (2007) on unorganised workers reminds us that in 2004-05 `only 40 per cent of the total and 18 per cent of the women workers in the unorganised sector had a designated place of work`.

There is unassailable evidence that women`s work is marred by a gender-based division of labour and discrimination. Women are often made to occupy informal, casual, temporary, low-paid, self-employed and `mummy-track` jobs; they experience discrimination in the wages they receive and in access to social security benefits. Among the structural barriers women encounter are educational and skill-level exclusions that peg women to low-paid, low-skill jobs, continuing the household division of labour that justifies a double burden of work or additional unpaid work for women; cultural factors which `affect women`s sense of the possible`; and the global division of labour that creates a gendered segmentation of the labour market.

However, if breaking the barriers of gender discrimination at work and unleashing women`s real potential in society are seen as preferred objectives, women at work cannot be dumped as a negative development. Therefore, some argue that the participation of women in household activities that facilitate integration of craft-based activities into the market, or commercialisation of what was formerly domestic production, involves an enhancement in the mode of production as well as a generalisation of the type of labour. It is argued that advances in the mode of production, even if craft-based and home-based, provide income for women, give them dignity and respect at home and lift them up from the status of subordinate household workers. The focus, therefore, is not to push women into the drudgery of unrecognised household work but to ensure non-discriminatory labour rights wherever women are working, improvement in the skill levels and the sharing of household responsibilities between men and women.It is the task of the trade unions to ensure this; the larger question is whether trade unions are addressing the concerns of women workers engaged in non-traditional occupations from a gender-rights perspective. A worldwide study carried out by the ILO and the ICFTU (ILO, 2000) found that the percentage of women joining trade unions remains generally lower than the percentage of men, and that under-representation by women in trade union decision-making persists. Women held less than a third of senior decision-making posts in over 60 per cent of the trade unions studied. The study further observes that the under-representation of women in trade union decision-making bodies is due to factors, including (i) the existence of prejudice, conveyed by hostile reactions and attempts at dissuasion against taking on trade union responsibilities, (ii) the rigidity of some rules of procedure, (iii) the unequal division of family responsibilities (this problem is all the more acute due to the significant number of single mothers), and (iv) the male-dominated nature of the `trade union culture` (time of meetings, style of meetings, trade union jargon, etc.). Though specific studies on this issue have not been undertaken among Indian trade unions, chances are that there are much less women in the decision-making bodies and the reasons for this phenomenon would not be different from those mentioned in the ILO study.

A more critical question is whether women trade unionists are experiencing a gender-based social exclusion in trade union work? It appears that a sexual division of labour within trade unions exists. There seems to be an unwritten specification as to what type of issues women trade unionists should address, and dissuasion from taking up issues that the male-oriented trade unions consider central issues of trade unions per se. These are serious issues confronting the trade unions.

This issue of Labour File explores these crucial issues. The banking industry, which was almost forbidden for women till the 1960s, opened its doors to women employees in 1969 after the nationalisation process. In spite of a large women workforce and a strong union, the number of women at the forefront of the union is few. The cover story, `Women in Bank Unions: The Breaking of a Male Bastion?`, highlights the dilemma of the women in bank unions and portrays their efforts in union activities, which are not given due recognition. The article establishes that the workforce in banks is still male-dominated and in spite of the efforts of the women workers, the latter`s role in leadership is minimal.

By highlighting the condition of the anganwadi workers, Indrani Majumdar, in `Rights of Women as Workers: Some Issues and Questions`, establishes that though there is a respectable quantum of policy discussion for the last two-and-a-half decades on the need to recognise women`s work and their economic contribution, in the main, these efforts have been confined only in exercises to expand data collection methodologies to make women workers visible in employment databases. Manju Chattopadhyay, in `Pioneering Women Labour Leaders of Bengal`, profiles four women activists who championed the cause of the working classes throughout India, but rues that none of them became a part of the history of our working class movement nor received the recognition each deserved.

K. Hemalata, in `Dynamics of Trade Unionism among Anganwadi Workers`, traces how, in the world of male centric unionism, the anganwadi workers and helpers, who come from socially oppressed and economically exploited sections of the society, got organised and continue with their relentless fight for rights. In her article, `Women`s Trade Unions in the Garment Sector`, Kathyayini Chamaraj narrates the successful initiatives of a garment workers` union in Bangalore city, which houses around 6 lakh garment workers, a majority of whom are not aware of union activities and work in exploitative situations that violate all labour laws. Anuradha Talwar expresses the difficulties faced in unionising the women agricultural workers, in `Women Workers and the Dynamics of Trade Unionism in the Agricultural Sector`, and warns that if male domination and the conservatism of the unions are not changed, the development of unions in which women are the predominant force may stagnate. In `Nimble Fingers, Unheard Voices: Trade Unionism in the Tea Sector  A Gender Perspective`, Rinju Rasaily studies the condition of women workers, who form the backbone of the tea economy, and states that in spite of being a large segment of the working class. they are visible only when `mobilised` but are not organised or encouraged to take up trade union leadership.  Meenakshi Ahluwalia, discussing the importance of home-based workers in India and their union activities in `Visible Products, Invisible Workers: Removing the Cloak of Invisibility on Home-based Workers`, emphasises the need for strengthening union activities of the home-based workers as well as the urgency for the ratification of ILO Conventions for their recognition.

Narrating the woes of the women who iron clothes and who lack formal recognition and protection, Ketaki Saxena, in `Ironing Women in Delhi`, establishes how these invisible women workforce are so vulnerable because of the piece-rate nature of their work with no benefits. In `Sexual Harassment at Workplace after Vishaka`, Snehal Velkar and Anagha Sarpotdar discuss the scenario at the workplace of women by analysing the Vishaka judgment and its current consequences.

Sujana Krishnamoorthy interviews Sister Jeanne Devos to understand her effort in organising the domestic workers in Mumbai and their persistent struggles to get their work recognised as `work`.

This issue of Labour File also carries profiles by Sindhu Menon of two pioneering women unionists – Amarjeet Kaur of AITUC and K. Hemalata of CITU – exploring their inspiring life, leadership and views on current issues.