For the purpose of data
collection, both primary as well as secondary data has been resorted to.
Secondary data has been used to establish a concrete structure of the
theoretical base of the present research study. Several books, articles, journals,
blogs, project thesis have been enquired into to gain a robust understanding of
the theoretical base of our endeavour. Data from BGMEA (Bangladesh Garment
Manufacturers and Exporters Association), BKMEA (Bangladesh Knitwear
Manufacturers and Exporters Association), BGBA (Bangladesh Garments Buyers
Association), and EPB (Export Promotion Bureau) in Bangladesh, have been
consulted. Primary data has been collected through the help of a questionnaire
by convenient sampling method, where 192 respondents who are Bangladeshi female
workers employed in 10 different garment factories predominantly belonging to
districts of Dhaka, Savar and Gazipur have been chosen. Then again 168 female
workers working in the garment factories run by Church parishes in 5 districts
of Dhaka, Dinajpur, Khulna, Rajshahi and Natore have been chosen. All the
respondents were surveyed by the help of a questionnaire which was given to
them to be filled by them and face-to face interviews. All the data collected
has been meticulously processed by using statistical software packages of IBM’s
SPSS 23.0 and STATA [6,7].
Presentation and
interpretation of data
As is evidenced from the above table, women
workers of a very young age group are seen working in garment factories of
Bangladesh of both the Church owned and Non-church owned ones. However, the
study confirms that more young people exist in non-church garment industry. We
also see women of older age group working in Bangladeshi garment factories
mainly in Church-run garment industry. It is also witnessed women above 50
years of age working in garment factories owned by Church. According to our
field survey, a reason for this is that their houses are adjacent to the
churches and they find it extremely convenient being under the direct control
of Church (Table 1,2).
Table 1: Age group according to
ownership (in %).
|
Age group
|
|
Ownership
|
0-20
|
21-25
|
26-30
|
31-40
|
41-50
|
Above 50
|
Total
|
|
|
Church
|
32
|
21
|
34
|
45
|
29
|
7
|
168
|
|
|
(19.05%)
|
(12.5%)
|
(20.24%)
|
(26.79%)
|
(17.26%)
|
(4.17%)
|
(100%)
|
|
|
Non-church
|
68
|
62
|
50
|
11
|
1
|
0
|
192
|
|
|
(35.42%)
|
(32.29%)
|
(26.04%)
|
(5.73%)
|
(0.52%)
|
(0%)
|
(100%)
|
|
|
Total
|
100
|
83
|
84
|
56
|
30
|
7
|
360
|
|
|
(27.78%)
|
(23.06%)
|
(23.33%)
|
(15.56%)
|
(8.33%)
|
(1.94%)
|
(100%)
|
|
|
Source:
Author's Field Survey, 2018.
|
Table 2: Percentage of religion
%.
|
Percentage of religion %
|
|
Ownership
|
Muslim
|
Christian
|
Hindu
|
Total
|
|
Church
|
19
|
148
|
1
|
168
|
|
(11.31%)
|
(88.1%)
|
(0.6%)
|
(100%)
|
|
Non-Church
|
158
|
13
|
21
|
192
|
|
(82.29%)
|
(6.77%)
|
(10.94%)
|
(100%)
|
|
Total
|
177
|
161
|
22
|
360
|
|
(49.17%)
|
(44.72%)
|
(6.11%)
|
(100%)
|
|
Source:
Author's field survey, 2018.
|
Table 3: Marital Status of the
Respondents %.
|
Marital Status of the Respondents %
|
|
Ownership
|
Unmarried
|
Married
|
Divorced/Deserted
|
Total
|
|
Church-owned
|
36
|
130
|
2
|
168
|
|
(21.43%)
|
(77.38%)
|
(1.19%)
|
100
|
|
Non-Church
|
72
|
110
|
10
|
192
|
|
(37.50%)
|
(57.29%)
|
(5.21%)
|
100
|
|
Total
|
108
|
240
|
12
|
360
|
|
(30%)
|
(66.67%)
|
(3.33%)
|
100
|
|
Source:
Author's field survey, 2018.
|
|
Table 4: Percentage of
educational qualification as per ownership%.
|
Percentage
of educational qualification as per ownership%
|
|
Ownership
|
Illiterate
|
Primary
|
Secondary
|
Higher Secondary
|
Graduation and above
|
Total
|
|
Church
|
7
|
76
|
79
|
6
|
0
|
168
|
|
(4.17%)
|
(45.24%)
|
(47.02%)
|
(3.57%)
|
(0%)
|
(100%)
|
|
Non-Church
|
22
|
95
|
62
|
9
|
4
|
192
|
|
(11.46%)
|
(49.48%)
|
(32.29%)
|
(4.69%)
|
(2.08%)
|
(100%)
|
|
Total
|
29
|
171
|
141
|
15
|
4
|
360
|
|
(8.06%)
|
(47.5%)
|
(39.17%)
|
(4.17%)
|
(1.11%)
|
(100%)
|
|
Source:
Author's field survey, 2018.
|
Table 5: The type of the family.
|
The type of the family
|
|
Ownership
|
Nuclear
|
Joint
|
Total
|
|
Church owned
|
161
|
7
|
168
|
|
(95.83%)
|
(4.17%)
|
(100%)
|
|
Non-church owned
|
184
|
8
|
192
|
|
(95.83%)
|
(4.17%)
|
(100%)
|
|
Total
|
345
|
15
|
360
|
|
|
(95.83%)
|
(4.17%)
|
(100%)
|
Table 6: Family income in terms
of ownership in percent.
|
Family income in terms
of ownership in percent
|
|
Ownership
|
Below 6000
|
6001-10000
|
10001-15000
|
15001-20000
|
20001-30000
|
30001-60000
|
Total
|
|
|
Church owned
|
6
|
46
|
63
|
45
|
8
|
0
|
168
|
|
|
(3.57%)
|
(27.38%)
|
(37.5%)
|
(26.79%)
|
(4.76%)
|
(0%)
|
(100%)
|
|
|
Non-Church owned
|
2
|
11
|
54
|
85
|
30
|
10
|
192
|
|
|
(1.04%)
|
(5.73%)
|
(28.13%)
|
(44.27%)
|
(15.63%)
|
(5.21%)
|
(100%)
|
|
|
Total
|
8
|
57
|
117
|
130
|
38
|
10
|
360
|
|
|
|
(2.22%)
|
(15.83%)
|
(32.5%)
|
(36.11%)
|
(10.56%)
|
(2.78%)
|
(100%)
|
|
Table 7: Family income of
different religion.
|
Religion
|
Below 6000
|
6001-10000
|
10001-15000
|
15001-20000
|
20001-30000
|
30001-60000
|
Total
|
|
Muslim
|
3
|
17
|
48
|
76
|
24
|
9
|
177
|
|
(1.69%)
|
(9.6%)
|
(27.12%)
|
(42.94%)
|
(13.56%)
|
(5.08%)
|
(100%)
|
|
Christian
|
5
|
39
|
60
|
47
|
10
|
0
|
161
|
|
(3.11%
|
(24.22%)
|
(37.27%)
|
(29.19%)
|
(6.21%)
|
(0%)
|
(100%)
|
|
Hindu
|
0
|
1
|
9
|
7
|
4
|
1
|
22
|
|
(0%)
|
(4.55%)
|
(40.91%)
|
(31.82%)
|
(18.18%)
|
(4.55%)
|
(100%)
|
|
Total
|
8
|
57
|
117
|
130
|
38
|
10
|
360
|
|
|
(2.22%)
|
(15.83%)
|
(32.5%)
|
(36.11%)
|
(10.56%)
|
(2.78%)
|
(100%)
|
Table 8: Frequency of sickness
in terms of ownership in percent.
|
Ownership
|
Very rarely
|
Sometimes
|
Often
|
Very often
|
Not applicable
|
Total
|
|
Church owned
|
15
|
68
|
10
|
5
|
70
|
168
|
|
(8.93%)
|
(40.48%)
|
(5.95%)
|
(2.98%)
|
(41.67%)
|
(100%)
|
|
Non-church owned
|
30
|
89
|
11
|
7
|
55
|
192
|
|
(15.63%)
|
(46.35%)
|
(5.73%)
|
(3.65%)
|
(28.65%)
|
(100%)
|
|
Total
|
45
|
157
|
21
|
12
|
125
|
360
|
|
|
(12.5%)
|
(43.61%)
|
(5.83%)
|
(3.33%)
|
(34.72%)
|
(100%)
|
Table 9: Role in the factory in
terms of ownership in percent.
|
Ownership
|
Helper
|
Cutter
|
Stitching
|
Supervisor
|
Operator
|
Quality controller
|
Cleaner
|
Total
|
|
Church owned
|
0
|
4
|
155
|
9
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
168
|
|
(0%)
|
(2.38%)
|
(92.26%)
|
(5.36%)
|
(0%)
|
(0%)
|
(0%)
|
(100%)
|
|
Non-church owned
|
35
|
19
|
68
|
17
|
34
|
13
|
6
|
192
|
|
(18.23%)
|
(9.9%)
|
(35.42%)
|
(8.85%)
|
(17.71%)
|
(6.77%)
|
(3.13%)
|
(100%)
|
|
Total
|
35
|
23
|
223
|
26
|
34
|
13
|
6
|
360
|
|
|
(9.72%)
|
(6.39%)
|
(61.94%)
|
(7.22%)
|
(9.44%)
|
(3.61%)
|
(1.67%)
|
(100%)
|
Table 10: Written contract
according to ownership in percent.
|
Ownership
|
Yes
|
No
|
Total
|
|
Church owned
|
0
|
168
|
168
|
|
(0%)
|
(100%)
|
(100%)
|
|
Non-Church owned
|
80
|
112
|
192
|
|
(41.67%)
|
(58.33%)
|
(100%)
|
|
Total
|
80
|
280
|
360
|
|
(22.22%)
|
(77.78%)
|
(100%)
|
In the above table, it
is evident that a huge chunk of the respondents in our study working in garment
factories owned by Church are mostly Christians while those working under the
Non-Church owned ones are mostly Muslims (Table 3).
As per the above table,
it is observed that majority of our respondents working in Church-owned and Non-Church
owned factories are married while myriad women are unmarried (Table 4).
According to the above
table, it can be inferred that albeit there exists women without any education
who are working in garment factories, but there are also women who are at least
qualified at the primary level or at the secondary level. We even see few women
who have qualified higher secondary level of education while some have also
attained higher education (Table 5).
As per the above table,
we can see that almost all families, irrespective of age, are nuclear families
or single families as compared to the category of a joint family which accounts
for only a measly proportion of the total respondents surveyed (Table 6).
From the above table,
we can see that most of the respondents belong to mediocre low income group.
Women workers of both Church owned and Non-Church owned garment factories
largely belong to an income group of 10001-15000 and 15001-20000. We also see a
good proportion of respondents (n=27.38%) belonging to an income group of
6001-10000 in Church owned factories as compared to Non-Church ones. A reason
for this could be that women prefer to work in Church owned factories not only
because of money but also for a plethora of other non-monetary facilities
offered (Table 7).
From the above table,
it is evident that a healthy proportion of respondents belonging to an income
group of 15000-20000 are Muslims and Christians. These two religion also has
its respective adherents working in garment factories also belonging to a lower
income level of 10001-15000 (Table 8).
According to the above
table, women workers both in Church owned factories as well as Non-Church owned
factories have an impeccable record in terms of a healthy life. Respondents
have put their views forward about their frequency of sickness as we see myriad
respondents have said that they seldom fall sick while most of the respondents
opined that they fall sick occasionally (Table 9).
From the above table,
we can see that almost all the women workers of Church owned factories work in
the stitching department while only a few are supervisors or coordinators and
hardly any women doing work of cutting and trimming. But if we compare this
with Non-Church owned factories, we see all women are moderately distributed
across all departments of the garment factories. A reason for this is that
Church owned factories have many machines and equipment which makes work easier
for women workers so that they do not have to do any additional works. This is
missing in Non-Church owned garment factories which is labour intensive and do
not have a rich arsenal of machines and equipment and hence have to depend on
their women workers (Table 10).
According to the above
table, we can see that most of the women workers working in garment factories
do not have a contract while some women workers in Non-Church owned factories
have a contract which is missing in the factories which are owned by Churches
(Table 11).
We again see that most of the respondents do not
have a permanent job in the factories they are working. But, we see a mediocre
proportion of respondents working in Non-Church owned garment factories who do
have a permanent job, which is entirely missing in the case of Church owned
garment factories (Table 12).
Table 11: Is job permanent as per
ownership in percent.
|
Ownership
|
Yes
|
No
|
Total
|
|
Church owned
|
0
|
168
|
168
|
|
(0%)
|
(100%
|
(100%)
|
|
Non-church owned
|
74
|
118
|
192
|
|
(38.54%)
|
(61.46%)
|
(100%)
|
|
Total
|
74
|
286
|
360
|
|
|
(20.56%)
|
(79.44%)
|
(100%)
|
Table 12: Salary in the Church
owned garment industry in terms of hour.
|
Hours of job
|
0-4000
|
4001-6000
|
6001-8000
|
8001-10000
|
10001-15000
|
Total
|
|
4 hours
|
6
|
3
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
9
|
|
(66.67%)
|
(33.33%)
|
(0%)
|
(0%)
|
(0%)
|
(100%)
|
|
5 hours
|
12
|
11
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
23
|
|
(52.17%)
|
(47.83%)
|
(0%)
|
(0%)
|
(0%)
|
(100%)
|
|
6 hours
|
10
|
16
|
1
|
0
|
1
|
28
|
|
(35.71%)
|
(57.14%)
|
(3.57%)
|
(0%)
|
(3.57%)
|
(100%)
|
|
7 hours
|
15
|
28
|
2
|
1
|
0
|
46
|
|
(32.61%)
|
(60.87%)
|
(4.35%)
|
(2.17%)
|
(0%)
|
(100%)
|
|
8 hours
|
21
|
24
|
11
|
6
|
0
|
62
|
|
(33.87%)
|
(38.71%)
|
(17.74%)
|
(9.68%)
|
(0%)
|
(100%)
|
|
Total
|
64
|
82
|
14
|
7
|
1
|
168
|
|
|
(38.1%)
|
(48.81%)
|
(8.33%)
|
(4.17%)
|
(0.6%)
|
(100%)
|
Table 13: Salary in the
non-church owned garment industry in terms of hour.
|
Hours of job
|
0-4000
|
4001-6000
|
6001-8000
|
8001-10000
|
10001-15000
|
15001-22000
|
Total
|
|
8 hours
|
2
|
14
|
24
|
16
|
7
|
3
|
66
|
|
(3.03%)
|
(21.21%)
|
(36.36%)
|
(24.24%)
|
(10.61%)
|
(4.55%)
|
(100%)
|
|
9 hours
|
0
|
9
|
12
|
7
|
2
|
0
|
30
|
|
(0%)
|
(30%)
|
(40%)
|
(23.33%)
|
(6.67%)
|
(0%)
|
(100%)
|
|
10 hours
|
0
|
13
|
29
|
28
|
3
|
5
|
78
|
|
(0%)
|
(16.67%)
|
(37.18%)
|
(35.9%)
|
(3.85%)
|
(6.41%)
|
(100%)
|
|
11 hours
|
0
|
6
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
0
|
12
|
|
(0%)
|
(50%)
|
(8.33%)
|
(16.67%)
|
(25%)
|
(0%)
|
(100%)
|
|
12 hours
|
0
|
2
|
1
|
0
|
1
|
2
|
6
|
|
(0%)
|
(33.33%)
|
(16.67%)
|
(0%)
|
(16.67%)
|
(33.33%)
|
(100%)
|
|
Total
|
2
|
44
|
67
|
53
|
16
|
10
|
192
|
|
|
(1.04%)
|
(22.92%)
|
(34.9%)
|
(27.6%)
|
(8.33%)
|
(5.21%)
|
(100%)
|
Table 14: Dismissal from job in
terms of ownership (%).
|
Ownership
|
Yes
|
No
|
Total
|
|
Church owned
|
0
|
168
|
168
|
|
(0%)
|
(100%)
|
(100%
|
|
Non-Church owned
|
54
|
138
|
192
|
|
(28.13%)
|
(71.88%)
|
(100%)
|
|
Total
|
54
|
306
|
360
|
|
|
(15%)
|
(85%)
|
(100%)
|
Table 15: Do you spend money for
your family as per ownership (%).
|
Ownership
|
Yes
|
No
|
Total
|
|
Church owned
|
167
|
1
|
168
|
|
(99.4%)
|
(0.6%)
|
(100%)
|
|
Non-church Owned
|
191
|
1
|
192
|
|
(99.48%)
|
(0.52%)
|
(100%)
|
|
Total
|
358
|
2
|
360
|
|
|
(99.44%)
|
(0.56%)
|
(100%)
|
Table 16: Do you spend money for
your family as per religion (%).
|
Ownership
|
Muslim
|
Christian
|
Hindu
|
Total
|
|
Church owned
|
19
|
148
|
1
|
168
|
|
(11.31%)
|
(88.1%)
|
(0.6%)
|
(100%)
|
|
Non-church owned
|
158
|
13
|
21
|
192
|
|
(82.29%)
|
(6.77%)
|
(10.94%)
|
(100%)
|
|
Total
|
177
|
161
|
22
|
360
|
|
|
(49.17%)
|
(44.72%)
|
(6.11%)
|
(100%)
|
From the above table,
it is evident that most of the women workers in Church owned garment factories
generally work less than 8 hours a day and their salary do not exceed Rs.6000
per month. A reason for this is that Church owned garment factories try to
compensate their remuneration for the other non-monetary facilities that they
render to their workers. We also see a good proportion of respondents who work
more than 8 hours a day and quite a few of them get a monthly salary between
6000-8000. A very good attribute of Church owned factories is that they offer
flexibility in work timings catering to the needs and attention of myriad women
workers who might not be able to work more than such amount of time (Table 13).
In the Non-Church owned
factories, there do not exists working hours less than 8 hours a day. Most of
the respondents secure a monthly income in the range of Rs.6000-Rs.8000 and
Rs.8000-Rs.10000. quite a few of the respondents also belong to a lower income
group of Rs.4001-Rs.6000. Few respondents also secure an income between
Rs.15001-Rs.22000 (Table 14).
As per the above table,
it is evident that women workers in Church owned garment factories enjoy a
peace of mind when talking in the context of job security. No women working in
Church owned garment factories has been dismissed from their job. While only a
small proportion of women workers belonging to Non Church owned garment
factories has been dismissed. It shows that garment factories in Bangladesh have
a very low labour turnover ratio (Table 15).
From the above table it
is evident that more than 99% of the respondents spend their money for their
family which reflects their character of being family oriented. Both women
workers of Church owned and Non-Church owned garment factories spend their
income towards their family (Table 16).
From the above table,
it is evidenced that most of the women workers working in Church owned
factories are mostly Christians while those working in Non-Church owned garment
factories are mostly Muslims. These respondents spend their income towards
their family reflecting their proclivity towards their family (Table 17).
Table 17: How much do they save
as per ownership (%).
|
Ownership
|
10%
|
20%
|
30%
|
40%
|
NA
|
Total
|
|
Church owned
|
43
|
90
|
2
|
19
|
14
|
168
|
|
(25.6%)
|
(53.57%)
|
(1.19%)
|
(11.31%)
|
(8.33%)
|
(100%)
|
|
Non-church owned
|
31
|
93
|
5
|
25
|
38
|
192
|
|
(16.15%)
|
(48.44%)
|
(2.6%)
|
(13.02%)
|
(19.79%)
|
(100%)
|
|
Total
|
74
|
183
|
7
|
44
|
52
|
360
|
|
|
(20.56%)
|
(50.83%)
|
(1.94%)
|
(12.22%)
|
(14.44%)
|
(100%)
|
Table 18: How much they spend for
own as per ownership (%).
|
Ownership
|
Up to 30%
|
up to 50%
|
up to 80%
|
Up to 100%
|
Total
|
|
Church owned
|
162
|
6
|
0
|
0
|
168
|
|
(96.43%)
|
(3.57%)
|
(0%)
|
(0%)
|
(100%)
|
|
Non-church owned
|
184
|
7
|
1
|
0
|
192
|
|
(95.83%)
|
(3.65%)
|
(0.52%)
|
(0%)
|
(100%)
|
|
Total
|
346
|
13
|
1
|
0
|
360
|
|
(96.11%)
|
(3.61%)
|
(0.28%)
|
(0%)
|
(100%)
|
It is evident from the
above table that a whopping proportion of respondents belonging to both Church
owned and Non Church owned garment factories at least save 20% of their salary.
Many respondents even save 40% of their income. This reflects their
conservative nature to mobilize savings and keep it reserved for future (Table
18).
From the above table it is evidenced that
majority of the respondents both working in Church owned as well as Non-Church
owned garment factories spend at least 30% of their income. Very rarely do
women workers actually spend half of their income. This again reflects of their
conservative nature.