logo
Why Are Fiji's Garment Workers Being Left Behind Despite A Rising Minimum Wage?

Why Are Fiji's Garment Workers Being Left Behind Despite A Rising Minimum Wage?

Scoop08-05-2025

Article – RNZ
A NZ-based civil society group is working to lift improve conditions for workers in the industry, but a Fijian union official says workers in the sector 'are very afraid' to engage., RNZ Pacific Senior Journalist
A New Zealand civil society group, aiming to improve working conditions of workers around the Pacific and Asia, has this week welcomed a Fijian union official to Wellington to discuss the plight of garment industry workers in Fiji.
Jotika Gounder-Sharma is an official with the Fiji Trades Union Congress (FTUC).
She has been working alongside UnionAID on a project aimed organising and improving conditions for garment workers in the Nadi-Lautoka region in the Western Division of the main island, Viti Levu.
Gouder-Sharma told RNZ Pacific about the tough environment confronting garment workers.
(This transcript has been edited for brevity and clarity).
Don Wiseman: I'm speaking with Jotika Gounder-Sharma, and she is with the Fiji Trade Union Congress (FTUC). And you're here in Wellington, discussing with UnionAID what can be done to help women, particularly in the garment industry in Fiji. The garment industry has been under a lot of stress for a long time there. What is the current situation for the garment industry in Fiji? How many people work there?
Jotika Gounder-Sharma: It is a pleasure to be part of this initiative by UnionAID to support garment industry workers in Fiji. As you rightly said, a lot of workers in the garment sector are women workers, workers who are not able to get access to employment in other fields. And most of the women in this category work in factories, and particularly in garment factories.
In Fiji, roughly an estimate, more than 5000 workers work full time in the garment factories. This is a huge number, particularly for the urban sector, where these women are employed.
DW: A huge number. But they used to be a lot more, didn't they?
JGS: There used to be a lot more. I think it also depends on the orders that the garment factories receive in terms of exports and sales. The number fluctuates every now and then. There are peak times and their off peak times for production in the garment sector as well, which is one of the reasons why women face a lot of issues in the garment sector.
DW: Those businesses left, and I think there's been one that's gone just recently as well, because they claim it's uncompetitive.
JGS: This is an excuse, I would say, that we have been getting from the employers, any employers, to say that the cost of production in our country is increasing and they compare to markets like Vietnam, Burma, other countries, also China, where the labour rate is much lower than what is in Fiji.
But I think if you invest in business, then this is one of the costs that you have to bear with, in terms of good quality, production, consistent supply, in terms of order, and I think this is one of the reasons why Fiji is still flourishing as one of the garment exporters in the region.
DW: There is a minimum wage in Fiji. From a New Zealand point of view, it's very low. It did get increased significantly, though, and I know the garment industry has said that this is one of the factors that they are losing companies. Is it a factor?
JGS: I think we have to look at this story from both sides.
When we had the minimum wage of FJ$2.32, which is like US$1.15, and the garment sector was still paid below that $2.32 an hour, and when it increased to $2.68 an hour, still the garment industry remained below the $2.68. So, the increase did not take effect in the garment sector.
This is a request by the employers in that sector and the FTUC continued to lobby to increase the minimum wage to $4 which is US$2 per hour. Until last year, the industry remained under the minimum wage, well below the minimum wage, and we continued lobbying with the government.
In the last budget address, the Minister for Finance announced that the minimum wage will increase to $5, though the FTUC demand was for $6 an hour. Now our campaign is also for a living wage. We want people to be able to afford the basic necessities of life, to live, and that is the reason we are asking for $8 an hour a national living wage to be implemented in Fiji.
While the national minimum wage campaign remains at $6. I sit on the National Employment Centre Board, where we decide on the wage rates for all sectors in terms of employment, whether they are interns, whether they are half time, whether they are casual, whether they are temporary, whether they are pool workers, they all need to be paid the national minimum wage, nothing below that.
We also fought for the garment industry workers to be paid the national minimum wage. So that is something that the Ministry of Employment has now taken on board, and we hope that the Minister responsible will take actions to ensure that the government sector is paid the national minimum wage and above.
Having looked at the costs from the employer side, I think no employer will employ workers just because he wants to. He will employ workers because there is work for these workers. The argument that comes from the employer side is null and void.
Employers continue living the life that they have lived. They can afford additional houses, they can afford SUVs, they can afford international education for their children. I do not see why they cannot invest in our own country for the workers that help make the profit, for their company, so that they can have these luxuries, even expansion of businesses in the country.
DW: Let's look at the scheme that UnionAID is working on with you. How will you go about this?
JGS: We are fortunate to have received some support from UnionAID to assist, particularly, this vulnerable sector – women workers, other vulnerable class of workers that could be migrant workers employed in the garment sector.
We have a lot of Indians working in the garment sector. We have a lot of Sri Lankans now being employed in the garment sector. And with the assistance of the UnionAID project, we are able to help this group of workers. It has been a struggle.
Last few months, it has been a struggle to get these workers to come to meetings. They are very afraid to come to the union office. They are very afraid to engage with unions. They shy away from making reports about what they are facing inside the factory.
We really have had to push hard to ensure that the workers come up with the with the issues that they are facing inside. Otherwise we are not able to help them, and this is only been made possible by the UnionAID's project. Otherwise, this is one of the sectors which is not very much organised or in unions.
We have two or three unions in under the FTUC umbrella, and they have garment sectors as union members, but that is a very low percentage of the membership of the working force.
So, this is an opportunity for us to help the workers by organising them into unions and training them, empowering them on their rights so that they feel free to join unions and raise issues.
DW: Why have they not been joining unions to date?
JGS: Initially, about six or seven years ago, there was a high rate of union membership from the particular factory that I am talking about, and then there was strict management practices or procedures where the members felt that they would be safer if they did not join unions.
There was a drastic decrease in the union membership from that employment. This can be said for other companies as well, where the workers feel that it is about their job security which matters more than them being part of the unions, and sometimes the employers tell them that we will look after you, why do you want to join unions?
We have a recent case where one of the workers told us that they have to go back and ask their supervisor if he or she can become a union member or not. They can sign the union form or not. So we told them, 'You need to know what are the rules, what are the legislations in the country, regarding union membership, joining the union. You have a right to join the union, and you do not need to ask somebody else's permission to join the union'.
These are some of the things, real life examples, that I can share with you which we are facing. The migrant workers, because they come from other countries, they fear that the work permit will be taken away. The employer will send them back.
The employer will not pay them the dues that they are supposed to receive as per their contract. So they stay within their own community groups, and they are reluctant to engage with the union. They are reluctant even to talk to the local people. So it's difficult. There's double wall challenges in accessing the workers, particularly from other countries.
DW: So the companies have brought in these workers from overseas to do this work.
JGS: Yes, you would be surprised to see the list of countries on the immigration website of Fiji, there is about 50 or 60 companies that are allowed to bring workers from elsewhere, from outside the country, to fill in, they say, the skills shortage that they have in Fiji, and there are some companies that are not listed there.
But they also have the opportunity to get workers, import workers, we say, from other countries, and this has been ongoing in the last few years, post-Covid, to fill in the skills shortage, which they say, because our people are migrating or leaving to work in Australia and New Zealand.
But I think it is, it is a way to get cheaper labour, readily available labour, because if you employ locals, they wouldn't want to work in the weekends. They have family obligations. They have cultural obligations. But if you bring people from outside the country, they don't have family, they are available after hours, they are available on Saturdays and Sundays to do work. So I think these advantages to the employer to get workers from outside the country to work for them at a cheaper rate.
DW: Where do they end up? Living in slums?
JGS: They live in groups, in houses, sometimes provided by the employer, sometimes paid by the employer. Sometimes they look for accommodation themselves, but you usually see that there's about 7,8, 9,10 of them living in one house. So that's that's how they live, so that they don't have to pay or that is because what the employer provides them.
DW: And what's the mood like among these people? Are they fearful?
JGS: Even the locals are fearful. I have had the opportunity to have pocket meetings with some of these workers from inside the factory. I can only get them after hours, which is after 5.30 onwards. Usually, they list their names to say, 'OK I'll be there because the union person is coming, or there is a union held organised meeting'. But on the actual day, you see only 10 turn up and 30 had listed to come. When we find out, and then they say, 'OK they have to do extra shifts, or they are afraid to come.
They cannot come, but they have sent this message, or they will ask us what the meeting was about, and we will go pass on the message. The fear is already there. Some of the workers are brave enough to come to the Union office or reach out to the Union, but not all of them. So this is the reason why the membership rate, union membership rate, particularly from this sector, is very, very low.
DW; And is that improving since you started this campaign?
JGS: I think are we building confidence because we also organising some training programmes on awareness to this group of workers.
We also use vernacular to get to them. We sit with them and spend time with them to ask them what are the issues? How long have you been working here? What are the issues that you face? When did you have your last wage increment? Are you secure in the workplace? Is there a good OHS [Occupational Health and Safety] practices in your company? How does the management react to you when you ask for leave? Is your sick leave paid? W hich is a basic right that is not given in our country in some of the workplaces that we are familiar with.
We have to lodge grievances because of that, termination cases, suspension cases for small things. So when we exchange with them the information and we tell them, Okay, this is your rights. This is what the union can do. These are the people that you can go to and report. This is the form you can fill. And these are the facilities that the union has for you. I think they feel that they can be part of the Union.
They want to be stronger. They want to help the other workers that are living in fear, walking in fear inside the factory. And we feel that in maybe in months to come, even, we will have an increase in the membership from the government sector.
DW: How confident are you that your work to increase these wages and improve conditions for these, mostly women, will succeed?
JGS: I can speak from other sectors where we thought that would not be any progress, but we have been able to make some changes, sometimes big changes. For a few garment factories, we need to continue pushing, continue reaching out to the workers, organising informal meetings. We say these people, they do not have access to formal training, so informal methods of reaching out to them, informal education programs, are the way where we try to build their confidence and in the role and explain to them the role of the unions.
We have also raised grievances to the Ministry of Employment, where we have told them that the management does not want to engage with the unions in terms of the collective agreement, to seal a collective agreement, to discuss and finalize a collective agreement that will cover the terms and conditions of employment for these workers. When we have meetings, we update them that this is what we have spoken to the management. Once these negotiations are completed, then you will have better terms and conditions.
But in one of the factories, the employer has used delaying tactics, does not appear, goes back and forth, sends people who don't have the mandate to make decisions on behalf of the company.
We have lost a grievance with the Ministry of Employment. We hope that once the ruling comes out, then the employers will take it seriously to conclude the negotiations on the collective agreement.
We can sign that, and that will be one plus point, one good progress report that we can take back to the workers to say, this is what the union has been successful in doing, and you do not need to fear. You do not need to worry about your jobs.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Cutting superannuation costs without setting off political landmines
Cutting superannuation costs without setting off political landmines

RNZ News

time2 hours ago

  • RNZ News

Cutting superannuation costs without setting off political landmines

Photo: 123RF Means testing is being introduced on a wide range of benefits. Questions are being asked over how long it will be before superannuation is targeted. Whatever age we're at, means testing for benefits is creeping into our lives. From the Best Start allowance for parents of newborns, to the parents of teens applying for Jobseeker, and those in Kiwisaver earning over $180,000. But when it comes to the old age pension, means testing is too touchy politically, says NZ Herald political editor Thomas Coughlan. He tells The Detail why the pension is off limits, for now. "There are things we get universally. Universal free education, a lot of health services are free. But cash payments, those are mostly means tested with one big exception." Every New Zealander who hits 65 is entitled to NZ Superannuation. "You could be a billionaire or you could have absolutely nothing and you will get it. "Culturally, politically we tell ourselves that we earn superannuation, we work hard we pay taxes our whole lives and when you retire you deserve to get the benefit from the government that you have paid for for your entire working life. That is the political bargain, I guess, at the heart of superannuation." Means testing superannuation is also not as straight forward as other benefits where Inland Revenue knows exactly how much beneficiaries or their parents earn. But most superannuitants don't work, making a means test on income difficult to manage. That leaves asset or wealth testing "which is just uranium wrapped in barbed wire". Coughlan says raising the retirement age is seen as the better of "two horrible options" and National has already signalled plans to gradually raise it to 67. But that is also fraught. The Retirement Commissioner Jane Wrightson doesn't like either option but is "more keen on the consideration of means testing than I am of raising the age". "But if that became a thing (raising the retirement age) then I would be arguing that it's a really comprehensive and well thought through policy change that considers a retirement system as a whole, not just about NZ Super, not just about Kiwisaver but the impact overall on future citizen New Zealand pensioners," Wrightson says. She calls the debate around superannuation a gender issue. "The commentators are mainly men. The issues around NZ Super, and who gets it and when, need to be looked at with a really strong gender lens because women are the ones who get disproportionately affected." The Detail also talks to pensioner Doug Beever in Australia where the pension kicks in at 67 and is means tested. Beever says he's happy with the arrangement because all of his working life he has been paying into a private retirement fund, a compulsory version of a Kiwisaver scheme that has been in place for decades. Wrightson says that is the difference between the two countries and why we can't copy Australia's pension model. The historic superannuation plan is a reason why the country is quite well off, "because those funds are in the billions and billions now. And secondly, people have got a decent pot themselves, so when you get that you can absolutely then talk about means testing, you can talk about raising the age ... you've got more levers to your bow when your citizens have been protected by a decent regulatory environment. "This is not what's happened here." Check out how to listen to and fol low The Detail here . You can also stay up-to-date by liking us on Facebook or following us on Twitter . Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

New Zealand's mean testing creep
New Zealand's mean testing creep

RNZ News

time3 hours ago

  • RNZ News

New Zealand's mean testing creep

Photo: 123RF Means testing is being introduced on a wide range of benefits. Questions are being asked over how long it will be before superannuation is targeted. Whatever age we're at, means testing for benefits is creeping into our lives. From the Best Start allowance for parents of newborns, to the parents of teens applying for Jobseeker, and those in Kiwisaver earning over $180,000. But when it comes to the old age pension, means testing is too touchy politically, says NZ Herald political editor Thomas Coughlan. He tells The Detail why the pension is off limits, for now. "There are things we get universally. Universal free education, a lot of health services are free. But cash payments, those are mostly means tested with one big exception." Every New Zealander who hits 65 is entitled to NZ Superannuation. "You could be a billionaire or you could have absolutely nothing and you will get it. "Culturally, politically we tell ourselves that we earn superannuation, we work hard we pay taxes our whole lives and when you retire you deserve to get the benefit from the government that you have paid for for your entire working life. That is the political bargain, I guess, at the heart of superannuation." Means testing superannuation is also not as straight forward as other benefits where Inland Revenue knows exactly how much beneficiaries or their parents earn. But most superannuitants don't work, making a means test on income difficult to manage. That leaves asset or wealth testing "which is just uranium wrapped in barbed wire". Coughlan says raising the retirement age is seen as the better of "two horrible options" and National has already signalled plans to gradually raise it to 67. But that is also fraught. The Retirement Commissioner Jane Wrightson doesn't like either option but is "more keen on the consideration of means testing than I am of raising the age". "But if that became a thing (raising the retirement age) then I would be arguing that it's a really comprehensive and well thought through policy change that considers a retirement system as a whole, not just about NZ Super, not just about Kiwisaver but the impact overall on future citizen New Zealand pensioners," Wrightson says. She calls the debate around superannuation a gender issue. "The commentators are mainly men. The issues around NZ Super, and who gets it and when, need to be looked at with a really strong gender lens because women are the ones who get disproportionately affected." The Detail also talks to pensioner Doug Beever in Australia where the pension kicks in at 67 and is means tested. Beever says he's happy with the arrangement because all of his working life he has been paying into a private retirement fund, a compulsory version of a Kiwisaver scheme that has been in place for decades. Wrightson says that is the difference between the two countries and why we can't copy Australia's pension model. The historic superannuation plan is a reason why the country is quite well off, "because those funds are in the billions and billions now. And secondly, people have got a decent pot themselves, so when you get that you can absolutely then talk about means testing, you can talk about raising the age ... you've got more levers to your bow when your citizens have been protected by a decent regulatory environment. "This is not what's happened here." Check out how to listen to and fol low The Detail here . You can also stay up-to-date by liking us on Facebook or following us on Twitter . Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

Migrant communities celebrate parent visa, amid concerns it'll lock many out
Migrant communities celebrate parent visa, amid concerns it'll lock many out

RNZ News

time3 hours ago

  • RNZ News

Migrant communities celebrate parent visa, amid concerns it'll lock many out

Parents and their sponsor will need to meet a range of health and income requirements to qualify for the new visa. Photo: RNZ Migrant communities are hailing a new visa which will allow parents of New Zealand citizens and residents to visit multiple times over a five-year period. Applications for the visa - announced by the government yesterday - will open from 29 September, with parents and their sponsor needing to meet a range of health and income requirements. But the Green Party has concerns it would lock out all but the most wealthy. The Parent Boost visa allows migrants to sponsor their parents to visit and stay in New Zealand for up to five years, with the option to extend for five more. The prime minister said it would mean a lot for many families. "Many, many other countries around the world have started to back off from visas like this. But it's so important to our migrant community, when we know how hard they work, and what they're doing to try and raise their families and strengthen their communities, and we want to be able to support them in this way," Christopher Luxon said. To get the visa, parents will need to have an eligible sponsor, meet acceptable character and health standards, and have at least one year of health insurance coverage providing emergency medical cover, repatriation, return of remains, and cancer treatment. While offshore during the third year of their visa, the parent would need to complete a new medical assessment and demonstrate they had maintained their insurance. The sponsor must also earn the median wage to sponsor one parent, or one and a half times the median wage for both parents. Otherwise, the parent or parents must have an ongoing income aligning with the superannuation rate, or have available funds of $160,000 for a single parent or $250,000 for both, to see them through the duration of their visa. Both National and ACT campaigned on a parent visitor visa in 2023. The policy was secured in the coalition agreement, although ACT wanted an annual $3500 fee, which would go into a public health fund, and ensure the visa was self-funding. ACT immigration spokesperson Parmjeet Parmar was at the announcement and while she was celebrating it, she said she did not want to see any situations where migrants were forced to remortgage their house to pay for emergency hospital bills. "Having a health insurance component is helpful, but sometimes it can also be a risk if the health insurance co-pay doesn't cover the cost, because I don't want to see any sponsor in any kind of debt," she said. Immigration minister Erica Stanford said the insurance component was necessary. "When you come to New Zealand on a visitor visa, there is no ability for you to go into the public service and receive healthcare. That's why, when you're here for five years, there needs to be that insurance component," she said. Insurance from an overseas provider would also be eligible. Luxon was confident the right balance had been struck. "We have to find the balance where you've got visitors from overseas who then want to access public services in New Zealand, but yet they haven't been taxpayers for 40 years, and that's not fair on New Zealanders who are here. But equally, we don't want it to be so onerous and unachievable," Luxon said. Ethnic and Faith Communities Network convenor Abdur Razzaq said the announcement was a long time coming, and was a significant step towards ensuring ethnic minorities in New Zealand would feel like they were part of New Zealand's fabric. "What we have got now is families who can be actually families," he said. He said many doctors, engineers, and IT professionals had been leaving New Zealand because their parents could not come. "Canada has had this for a long time, and it's worked." Razzaq believed it struck the right balance so there would not be burdens on the health and housing sectors. Daljit Singh from the Supreme Sikh Society said he had been lobbying Parliament for this kind of visa for years. "It's a benefit to every migrant in this country. It is the opportunity for parents to stay with their children," he said. But Singh continued to have concerns about the income thresholds. "There is still a gap between rich and poor. Everybody wants, actually, to stay with their parents." The Green Party's immigration spokesperson Ricardo Menéndez March said the income requirements would lock out thousands of migrant families. "Low-waged workers that National called essential during the pandemic will be missing out on being able to have their parents living with them in their new homeland," he said. Menéndez March had concerns that when the visas expired, migrants would end up sending more money offshore instead of in New Zealand, and using up weeks of leave to see their ageing parents. The visa is not a pathway to residency. Parents would not be able to work in New Zealand, but would be able to do remote work for their offshore employer. Luxon said checks and balances would be in place to ensure parents and their sponsors met their obligations. "I know people will respect it, but it's really important that people meet their obligations, and so there will be stronger enforcement as well associated to make sure that people are not abusing the system or taking advantage of the system," he said. The existing $441 Parent and Grandparent visitor visa allows relatives to stay for six months at a time, for a maximum of 18 months over a three year period. A separate Parent Resident visa lets parents live in New Zealand indefinitely, but comes with English language requirements, costs $5810, and needs an expression of interest before being invited to apply. They can apply for permanent residence after ten years. There is also a Parent Retirement Resident visa which costs $12,850, and requires parents to have an adult child who is a New Zealand citizen or resident living in New Zealand, have at least $1 million to invest in New Zealand for four years and at least $500,000 for settlement, and an annual income of at least $60,000. After the four years, the parent can apply for permanent residence. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store