DEL TRIBUNAL SUPERIOR DE JUSTICIA

The project developed a set of variables that indicated the existence of forced or bonded labor by examining three stages: when the child entered the workforce, when the child was working, and when the child left the workforce (ILO, 2011). This addresses another specific question that the study was designed to answer: To what extent were children working in the carpet industry working under forced and/or bonded labor conditions?

One possible indicator was the age of the child carpet worker when the child started working and when the child was interviewed. Was he or she too young to be considered capable of making an independent voluntary decision? This factor was indecisive for the factory-based child carpet workers. Their median age to start working was 13 years; their median age was 15 years when they were interviewed; and only 12.2 percent of them were below 14 at that time. The HH-based child carpet workers included younger children, including some 5-8 years old. Obviously some of the HH-based children did not independently make the decision to start working. Their parents

made the decision. However, parental and family pressure on children to work in the family setting does not qualify as forced labor. Coercion must be applied by a third party (not the child’s parents) to be considered an indication of forced labor (see ILO, 2011:17).

Another important factor was family poverty and indebtedness, which might indicate that the family was trapped in indebtedness and had to repay debt with labor (possible bonded labor). If the entire family was forced to work, then the child also would be in forced or bonded labor. In its guidelines on forced labor, the ILO noted that, “If a child is working as a direct consequence of his or her parents being in a situation of forced labour, then the child is also considered to be in forced labour.”

Family poverty and indebtedness were obviously important in influencing children’s entry into the carpet industry workforce; 54.9 percent of HH-based child carpet workers reported that they were working to supplement family income, and another 10.9 percent were working to help the HH enterprise. Factory-based children in particular appeared to be an important source of financial support for their families, as evidenced by the fact that all or some of the earnings from 81.7 percent of these children were given to the parents. The fact that the majority of children were working to help support their families was an indication of family poverty rather than an indication of possible forced or bonded labor.

The comparative research showed that carpet HHs appeared to be poorer than other HHs in the same areas. More than two-thirds (69.6 percent) of the carpet HHs reported difficulty finding money to buy food or clothes. More than half (57.1 percent) of carpet HHs had acquired some debt, and two-fifths of the carpet HHs that acquired debt reported difficulties in the last 12 months in repaying debt (see Table 32 and Table 33). The consequences for not repaying debts included higher interest rates and accumulation of fees, indicating that those HHs already may have entered, or might enter in the future, a spiral of perpetual debt.

There were very few indications that household debt had resulted in bonded labor situations among HH-based child carpet workers. Providing labor to the creditor, a consequence related to bonded labor, was mentioned quite rarely, although it was mentioned slightly more often among carpet HHs than non-carpet HHs (see Table 34). No HH reported that a child’s labor had been part of the exchange. Almost none (0.1 percent) of the HH-based child carpet workers reported working to pay outstanding family debt (see Table 11). Another potential indication was the responses when child carpet workers were asked about their ability to stop working. No HH- based child carpet worker reported being unable to leave their job because they had to pay debt, or any other form of coercion from a third party.

The factory-based child carpet workers showed clear indications of forced or bonded labor. A majority of the children working in carpet factories were living in vulnerable conditions: 95.7

percent were migrants, and 85.2 percent were not living with their parents. One-fifth (18.1 percent) of the factory-based child carpet workers reported that they were unable to leave their job even if they wanted to leave (see Table 21). A small proportion (2.4 percent) of the factory- based children reported that they could not leave because their employer would punish them or not let them go, and an additional 1.1 percent mentioned that they could not leave because they still had to pay an outstanding debt.

There were strong indications that there was some forced or bonded labor, and that it was found predominantly in isolated migrant children working away from their families in carpet factories, who could not leave the job because the employer would punish or harm the child if he or she tried to leave the job. There were few indications of a direct link between family poverty and forced or bonded labor conditions.

DISCUSSION