PRINCIPIOS GENERALES DE LA ADMINISTRACIÓN PÚBLICA

4.4.1. REASONS WHY CHILDREN WORK

There were no significant differences between HH-based and factory-based child carpet workers concerning the main reasons why they were working; 82.3 percent of the HH-based and 63.1 percent of the factory-based reported that their main reason was to supplement family income (see Table 13). The other reasons selected by factory-based child carpet workers were helping with the family enterprise (12.0 percent), cannot afford school fees (9.6 percent), and to learn a new skill (8.9 percent). The secondary reason for HH-based children was for personal expenses, food, and clothing (6.9 percent). An indication of possible bonded labor would be if children reported that their main reason to work was to repay outstanding family debt, but almost no one (0.2 percent) reported that they were working to repay an outstanding family debt.

61

Table 13. Reason to Work among Child Carpet Workers

Total Children Working in Households Children Working in Factories _p-value

Weighted N = 11,642 10,885 757

“What is the main reason you work?”

To supplement family income 81.0% 82.3% 63.1%

.18

To pay outstanding family debt 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% To help in household enterprise 4.5% 4.0% 12.0%

To learn new skill 1.0% 0.5% 8.9%

Cannot afford school fees 1.1% 0.6% 9.6%

For personal expenses, food, clothing 6.8% 6.9% 6.3%

No interest in studies 0.8% 0.8% 0.0%

DK/NR 4.5% 4.8% 0.0%

Base: Children who worked in the carpet industry in the past 12 months. Information missing for 20 HH-based child carpet workers (Weighted N = 1,489). Source: India PC household child survey (Nov. 2009-April 2010), India PC Level 2 factory worker survey (November 2011).

4.4.2. AGE WHEN CHILDREN BEGAN WORKING

Child labor is indicated when the child starts working before he or she is legally permitted to work and when the child starts working at a very young age (see Figure 5). A majority of the child carpet workers in India began working in industry-related activities by the time they were 12 years old, but the age to start working was lower for HH-based children (median age of 12 years) than for the factory-based (median age of 14 years). The difference was probably related to the HH-based children beginning to weave in their own homes, whereas two-fifths (41.6 percent) of the factory-based child carpet workers were migrants who probably came from non- weaving HHs and did not begin to work in the industry until they had migrated to the factory (see 6.5.5 for the qualitative research in West Bengal).

62

Figure 5. Age When Child Carpet Workers Began Engaging in Carpet Activities

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Age of Entrance Household Factory

Base: Children (5-17) interviewed in the PC study who had worked in the carpet industry in the last 12 months and provided a valid response Source: India PC household child survey (Nov. 2009-April 2010), India PC Level 2 factory worker survey (November 2011).

4.4.3. VOLUNTARY AND FORCED MIGRATION WHEN ENTERING THE WORKFORCE

There was a significant difference in migration status between the HH-based and factory-based child carpet workers. Almost all (98.6 percent) of the HH-based child carpet workers were born in the same place where they were surveyed. The majority (58.4 percent) of the factory-based child carpet workers were also local residents, but 41.6 percent had migrated (see Table 14). More than one-third (35.5 percent) of the factory-based child carpet workers were not living with their parents or spouse, showing that most of the migrants had not been accompanied by their parents on the move (see Table 14). Very few (1.2 percent) of the HH-based child carpet workers were not living with their parents or spouse, and only 8.3 percent were working for someone other than their parents.105

63

Table 14. Migration and Parental Status of Child Carpet Workers

Total Children Working in Households Children Working in Factories _p-value

Weighted N = 13,131 12,374 757

“Were you born here or somewhere else?” (%) 1

Born here 96.3% 98.6% 58.4%

<.01**

Somewhere else 3.7% 1.4% 41.6%

Relationship with Parents (%)

Child not working for parents - 8.3% - -

Child was not living with parents or spouse 3.1% 1.2% 35.5% <.01**

Country/District of Origin 2 _{X X X}

1_{Base: Children who worked in the carpet industry in the past 12 months. Information on working for parents missing for 20 HH-based child carpet workers}

(Weighted N = 1,489).

2_{Base: Children who worked in the carpet industry in the past 12 months and were born elsewhere. Insufficient sample base (n<30) for factory-based child carpet}

workers and HH-based child carpet workers.

Source: India PC household child survey (Nov. 2009-April 2010), India PC Level 2 factory worker survey (November 2011).

The overall prevalence of migrant children was low, representing an estimated total of only 488 children (315 factory-based and 173 HH-based). The sample bases were too small to produce a statistically valid quantitative description, so the analysis of migration patterns in this section was done qualitatively. The 173 HH-based migrant child carpet workers had migrated with their families, mostly from other areas within UP. A very small proportion (0.3 percent of HH-based child carpet workers) had a job waiting for them, and a contractor was not involved in finding those children a job.

The 315 migrant factory-based child carpet workers had moved to the carpet belt in UP from Bihar or West Bengal. A majority of the migrants had come to the carpet belt for work. Most had come voluntarily, but the decision for most of them had been made by a parent or other relative. Before moving to UP, most of the migrants were aware of working conditions, such as salary, working hours, and days off, which indicated that the migrants were following in the footsteps of previous migrants from their home areas (see 6.5.5 for qualitative information about chain migration from West Bengal). Most of the children were living with friends or relatives at the time they were interviewed. Labor contractors were reported to be involved in only a few cases, and there were no reports of any exchange of money, payment of debt, or anything else in exchange for the child’s move.

64