TK 3,000 crore fund for the garment industry. Tk 20 crore fund for retrenched workers.

With such a stark difference, anyone interested in the garment industry has to ask, why so much money for owners and so little for workers?

BGMEA will argue that we should put all our efforts into saving the industry. They say that garment

workers suffer without jobs, and so we must fight to keep those jobs. We, of course, agree with this argument, and therefore work closely with BGMEA and others to promote growth in business and employment in the garment industry. It is true, lead-time is one of the prime challenges facing the sector, and that the central bonded warehouse (CBW) will create jobs in the garment industry. But is lead-time the only problem? Also, will a huge fund for bank loans save every garment factory?

The above enormous imbalance in government funding results from two things:

One, the lack of any worker representation on the national coordination committee, and two, a misunderstanding of the crisis.

First, when the National Coordination Council (the government body assigned to address the MFA crisis) was designed, the workers' cause was given absolutely no representation. Even the Ministry of Labour was not consulted during the process, much less a trade union or

NGO. To argue that this doesn't concern the workers is absurd because they have the most to lose. To argue that the BGMEA or Ministry of Commerce can adequately represent the workers is equally absurd.

Second, a deeper understanding of sourcing patterns in garments will show that a country doesn't just win or lose with MFA quota phase-out. Within the country, some businesses will prosper and others will die. This will occur due to increased competition, where the strong

survive and the weak die out. In industry, not all factories will be able to sustain a 15-30 per cent drop in price, simply from increased competition. In the USA, the price might drop even more because factories won't have to pay for the quota any more. On the other hand, buyers are consolidating their supply chains, preferring to buy from a few factories rather then many.

What does this mean of Bangladesh? There is no doubt that the Annisul Huqs will do very well in the post-quota world, especially with a

central bonded warehouse; but many small factories who sell garments to agents who then sell to another agent who then sell to a retailer in the USA, many of these small factories will die out. They are numerous and can be seen all over such areas as Mirpur. Even with a drop in their lead-time from a central bonded warehouse (which won't be implemented until a long time after quotas are phased out), these factories will not be able to sustain a further 15 per cent drop in their price. In other words, no matter what

steps are taken, there will be many factories closing their doors in Bangladesh, and thousands of workers losing their jobs.

As illustrated in The Daily Star story of June 26 ("Job loss pushes them to suicide: Over 50 unemployed garment workers take their own lives in Gazipur"), loss of job is devastating for the workers. With at least some factories expected to close, action must be taken. Garment owners should respect the labour law and provide workers with notice time and

compensation. The government, along with owners and buyers, must ensure that workers do not fall through the cracks. We don't necessarily need to give less money to garment owners, but a serious programme must be designed to address this crisis from the workers' perspective.

Otherwise, we might see the tragedies of Gazipur spread throughout Bangladesh.

Jonathan Rose is a policy advisor for Oxfam International.