Reviewing the draft labour law

The recent approval of the draft Bangladesh Labour Act (Amendment) Ordinance 2025 by the interim government has drawn strong reactions from the representatives of the country's largest industry association, the Bangladesh Garment Manufacturers and Exporters Association (BGMEA). Labour law reforms, particularly those related to enhancing the scope of trade union activity and collective bargaining, have been long overdue. Despite multiple tripartite dialogues in recent years involving industry owners, labour representatives and the government, very few substantive outcomes materialised. This lack of progress not only frustrated workers but also left major compliance requirements of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) unmet. When the incumbent government initiated a fresh reform process, there was a growing expectation that it would bridge disagreements and bring harmony in employee-employer relations.
However, the newly approved draft appears to have fallen short of such expectations. According to BGMEA leaders, several provisions deviate significantly from the consensus reached during earlier tripartite discussions. One of their key concerns relates to the criteria for forming trade unions. The revised draft replaces percentage-based worker representation with a fixed-number system-allowing at least 20 workers in factories employing 20 to 300 workers to apply for union formation. This reportedly contradicts the tripartite committee's earlier recommendation requiring a minimum of 50 workers to form unions in establishments employing 50 to 500 workers. The draft also permits up to five trade unions within a single establishment, raising fears of union fragmentation and internal conflict.
At a press briefing this week, BGMEA leaders urged the government to revisit these provisions. The BGMEA president cautioned that the lowered threshold might pave the way for individuals with no genuine links to the industry-such as jhut traders or house owners-to form unions, potentially destabilising factories and hindering production. Another point of contention is the decision to allow workers to simultaneously participate in both the company-managed provident fund and the national pension scheme, Pragati. The BGMEA contends that this dual arrangement would create administrative complications, raise operational costs and ultimately place additional burdens on factory management. The tripartite committee, by contrast, had recommended that factories be given flexibility to choose a single scheme to avoid duplication and confusion.
It has been reported that the tripartite committee discussed 145 separate issues. While the BGMEA agreed to 142 of them, dissenting to only three: the union formation threshold, the definition of workers and the provident fund structure. This raises an important question: how did the agreed-upon recommendations get overlooked in the final version of the draft? If the concerns expressed by the industry are indeed valid, there is a compelling need for the government to reassess the disputed provisions before the law is finalised. For a sector so central to the national economy and to millions of livelihoods, it is crucial that the labour reform process stays rooted in collaboration and consensus. Ultimately, the credibility of the new labour law will depend on its ability to ensure both workers' rights and industrial stability without compromising on either.