May Day and Labour Law 2026

-       Bangladesh Garments Workers Solidarity

by Taslima Akhter

THE global recognition of the eight-hour workday did not come easily. It was won through bloody struggles, mass uprisings, and the sacrifice of countless lives. Behind it lies the historic labour movement that emerged 140 years ago in the city of Chicago in the United States, demanding recognition of the eight-hour working day. At the time, workers were forced to labour for 14 to 16 hours a day, sometimes even more than 18. They barely had the chance to breathe under an open sky, let alone properly see or feel the daylight on their skin. Against these inhuman working hours, workers raised the slogan: ‘Eight hours for work, eight hours for rest, eight hours for recreation — this is our right.’ On May 1, 1886, at Haymarket Square in Chicago, workers demonstrating for the eight-hour day were met with police batons and bullets. Later, movement leaders August Spies, Albert Parsons, Adolph Fischer, and George Engel were executed by hanging. It was through such sacrifices that the eight-hour workday gradually came to be recognised in labour laws across the world.

Every year, when May Day returns, we once again speak about the working hours and overall conditions of workers in our country. In Bangladesh, the eight-hour workday may exist on paper, but in reality, it remains absent. Workers are still trapped in inhumane working hours. This is deeply tied to the question of dignified wages. Because wages are not enough to live with dignity, workers are often compelled to seek jobs where overtime is higher. They survive by exhausting the very life force within them. The urgent demand today is this: a worker should be able to live a dignified life through eight hours of labour alone, without being forced into overtime or excessive work just to survive.

May Day 2026 holds particular significance for workers in Bangladesh. In April, the country’s workers and labour sector received a new Labour Law (Amendment) 2026. But before discussing this new law, it is important to return to the pages of history. Bangladesh’s labour laws have evolved along the legacy of British colonial and later Pakistani labour legislation. During the inter-colonial Pakistan period, the Industrial Relations Ordinance of 1969 was introduced, and after the Liberation War of 1971, it remained in force through Presidential Order No 48. Over time, further amendments and additions followed. Bangladesh eventually enacted its own Labour Law in 2006. Before that, there had been several attempts to formulate a unified labour law. In the aftermath of the anti-autocracy mass uprising of the 1990s, a Labour Law Commission was formed in 1992. Yet the law itself only came into being in 2006, immediately following the garment workers’ movement demanding higher wages. At the time, the minimum wage was raised from 930 taka to 1,662 taka. Today, garment workers officially earn a minimum wage of 12,500 taka — a figure that is still far from enough to survive in the current market reality.

Seven years after the 2006 Labour Law, and then again thirteen years later in 2026, Bangladesh witnessed two major turning points in the history of its labour legislation. On April 24, 2013, the Rana Plaza building collapsed, killing 1,175 workers. Within barely two months of the industrial homicide, on July 22, 2013, the labour law was amended across 87sections. In the aftermath, the number of labour unions began to grow. Then came the anti-fascist mass uprising of 2024. A large number of those who lost their lives in that uprising were working-class people. It was on the foundation of both the mass uprising and the workers’ movements that followed that the Labour Law of 2026 emerged, bringing amendments and changes to 93 sections. Throughout Bangladesh’s historic movements, we have repeatedly seen how political consciousness and public expectations deepen among ordinary people — just as they did after the uprising of 2024. History shows us that labour laws in Bangladesh have not changed simply because reform was considered necessary. They have changed under the pressure of movements forged through sacrifice and workers struggle.

On April 9, 2026, the Labour (Amendment) Act 2026 was passed in Bangladesh’s 13th Parliament. In the history of the country’s labour movement, it marks a positive step forward in protecting workers’ rights and advancing the labour sector.The new law eases the conditions for forming trade unions, allowing unions to be established through a graduated threshold beginning from workplaces with 20 workers up to larger factories with 400 workers. It also shortens the wage revision period from every five years to every three years. Domestic workers have now been formally recognised. The term ‘mohila’ has been replaced with ‘narī’, and discriminatory practices have been explicitly prohibited. The law further introduces provisions addressing discrimination, gender-based violence, and sexual harassment, including clear definitions and the formation of complaint resolution committees. Mandatory safety committees in workplaces, recognition of workers’ right to refuse dangerous work, increased festival holidays, enhanced compensation for layoffs and death-related cases, and expanded benefits upon resignation by workers have also been included. In addition, the law provides for the creation of an accident compensation fund, defines the practice of blacklisting workers, and introduces the formation of a National Social Dialogue Forum. Many of these provisions were carried over almost directly from the Labour Ordinance of 2025 into the new law of 2026.

Yet despite these advances, some demands from both workers and owners remain unfulfilled, and dissatisfaction persists on several fronts. In a number of important areas, the law has in fact stepped back from what had earlier been proposed in the Ordinance. Beyond the demands raised by workers, the only major change from the ordinance in the law is the reinstatement of Section 180(1)(b), which allows industrial establishments to keep 10 percent of workers outside formal employment arrangements. This provision had been removed in the ordinance but has now been restored in the law. Even the slight increase in workers’ benefits upon resignation under Section 27(4) of the Labour Law 2026 has drawn objections from owners — a deeply disappointing response.

Still, whatever progress has been made in favour of workers in the labour law did not come easily. It was not driven solely by the complaint brought by the International Labour Organization under Article 26 of the ILO Constitution — concerning Bangladesh’s failure to properly implement the Labour Inspection Convention (81), the Freedom of Association Convention (87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention (98) — nor merely by the continuity of labour law reform efforts from previous years. The decisive force was the mass uprising. It created a renewed opportunity to end prolonged delays, seriously address the ILO complaint, accelerate the process of labour law reform, and bring together workers’ new expectations into a common framework.

The period from 2024 to 2026 has been a significant chapter in Bangladesh’s political landscape. In 2024, under the leadership of Syed Sultan Uddin Ahmed, a Labour Reform Commission was formed, bringing together workers’ and owners’ representatives, lawyers, economists, and other stakeholders. The commission later published its reform report along with a set of recommendations. Work on revising labour legislation then resumed through the National Tripartite Consultative Council. From this process emerged the Labour Ordinance (2025), and eventually the Labour (Amendment) Act 2026. Now, it is crucial that these newly passed laws are not left on paper alone but are actively practiced, debated, and implemented. Equally important is the formulation of consistent and effective rules and regulations to accompany them. Looking ahead, there remains a hope that democratic pathways will stay open for further amendments to labour law and for the creation of new legislation through an ongoing participatory process.

In weighing the gains and limitations of the Labour Law 2026, I would like to focus below on two particular aspects: the question of trade union rights, and the issue of changing discriminatory language alongside the introduction of anti-discrimination provisions in the law.

Improved trade union rights

THE right to organise and the right to free expression are inseparably linked with workers’ rights to life, livelihood, and dignity. Earlier, the threshold for union formation was set at 20 per cent within an establishment and 30 per cent for groups of establishments, making registration significantly more difficult for workers.

Under the 2026 Labour Law, however, union registration has been restructured starting from as low as 20 workers. It is now organised into five tiers: from 20 to 300 workers, a union can be formed with 20 members; from 301 to 500 workers, with 40 members; from 501 to 1500 workers, with 100 members; from 1501 to 3000 workers, with 300 members; and for establishments with more than 3000 workers, 400 members are required.

From a policy perspective, this shift is expected to reduce fears of instability in the labour sector. Instead, it will widen the space for the practice of freedom of expression, strengthen democratic workplace culture, and improve collective bargaining opportunities for workers. In the long run, it may also contribute to greater investment in key sectors of the economy by ensuring a more stable and participatory labour environment.

Earlier, the process of union registration had often turned into something deeply political. In many cases, domestic and foreign owners, along with government influence and financial power, effectively shaped who could or could not form a union. As a result, registration was not merely an administrative procedure — it became a contested political space. There is hope that with the proper implementation of the current law, workers will be able to form unions without the burden of these older, distorted practices of power and influence. The expectation is that workers can organise more freely in a democratic environment, without facing hidden barriers embedded in legal wording or procedural complexity. At the same time, it is essential that the upcoming rules and regulations address existing ambiguities in the law. Any lack of clarity in legal language must be carefully resolved so that workers are not trapped in procedural loopholes or interpretative complications when attempting to exercise their right to organise. However, as the number of unions is currently limited to only three, workers’ opportunities to form unions remain restricted. Worker representatives will need to continue both legal and grassroots struggles in the future to change this numerical barrier.

Recognising discriminatory language

OUT of the country’s 180 million people, nearly 75 million belong to the labour force. Women make up around 51 percent of the population, and more than half of the workforce is female. In this context, addressing wage inequality, gender-based discrimination, and other forms of workplace injustice through law is critically important for ensuring dignity at work. Equally important is how language itself is used, shaped, and governed through policy. Language carries politics, and it also shapes perception. The way workers and women are named and described has long influenced how their labour is valued. Historically, the term ‘mahila’ (woman) is derived from ideas such as ‘mahal’ or ‘inner quarters,’ which has contributed to a social mindset that undervalues women’s work. In this context, the recent change in the law —replacing ‘mahila’ with ‘narī’ (women) throughout the Labour Law — is a significant symbolic and political shift.

In the Labour Reform Commission, we had also collectively recommended ending the use of informal and unequal forms of address such as ‘tui’ and ‘tumi’ in workplaces, as they often reflect and reinforce hierarchical and disrespectful relations. That recommendation is reflected in the new law through Section 345K, which prohibits discrimination against workers and strengthens protections for equal and respectful treatment in the workplace.

Defining gender-based violence

SECTION 332, which earlier dealt with the treatment of women, has been renamed to focus on the responsibility of all stakeholders to prevent violence in the workplace and at work settings.

Under the new Section 332A, a Dispute Resolution Committee on discrimination, violence, and harassment has been introduced, in line with the 2009 High Court directives and long-standing demands of labour and women’s movements. Out of its five members, the majority are women, and the committee is headed by a woman. It also includes provisions for two members to be drawn from organisations working on gender and sexual harassment issues.

In addition, Section 2(12)(b) now includes a definition of gender-based violence and harassment in the workplace, which aligns with ILO Convention 190 on violence and harassment. Taken together, these provisions are expected to contribute to building a more equal, worker-friendly and gender-sensitive work culture for both women and men.

Many important demands of workers have also remained unfulfilled in the 2026 Labour Act. For instance, although the establishment of a National Minimum Wage Commission and a statutory mechanism for wage determination has long been a key demand of workers, it has not been included in the law. Similarly, despite repeated calls for the use of Bengali as the official language across all levels — from labour courts up to the High Court — this has not been ensured.Maternity leave also remains discriminatory between the public and private sectors. While government employees receive 180 days of paid maternity leave, workers in the proposed reform had demanded the same 180 days with full pay across all sectors. However, the existing law has only increased leave from 112 days to 120 days, an extension of just 8 days.The demands of outsourced and daily-wage workers have also not been incorporated into the law. Even after the tincidents of industrial homicide such as Rana Plaza and Tazreen, the compensation framework has not been revised. The current ordinance also fails to introduce clear or enhanced penalties for deaths caused by negligence or workers death resulting from structural failures.

Finally, I must say, the amendment and the enactment of new laws are ongoing processes. It is expected that there will remain scope to make this law more worker-friendly and democratic in the future. During the previous authoritarian regime, workers were repeatedly subjected to politicisation and abuse of power. They lost their rights, and in many cases, their lives. In the post–2024 mass uprising context,  the role of the government in this historic moment becomes even more significant. The extent to which the state moves toward a labour-friendly democracy will be reflected in its impact on the lives and livelihoods of working people. Ultimately, it is a path of accountable democracy, combined with the strength of united movements, that can ensure justice for workers’ lives, livelihoods, and dignity.

Taslima Akhter is chairperson of the Bangladesh Trade Union Federation and Bangladesh Garment Workers Solidarity.