The recent amendment to Malawi’s industrial laws, which limits employee strikes (sit-ins) to just three days before wages are withheld, has sparked serious concern among labour rights advocates.
While this law may offer reassurance to employers by reducing prolonged disruptions, it effectively weakens employees’ bargaining power, reinforcing a system that already favours employers.
The new provision aligns with Kantianism—where duty and structure take precedence—rather than Utilitarianism, which considers the greatest benefit for the majority.
This shift raises questions about whether the law serves justice or merely protects business interests at the expense of workers.
Historically, under past administrations including Bakili Muluzi, Professor Bingu wa Mutharika, Joyce Banda, and Arthur Peter Mutharika, there was no such restriction on strike duration.
Workers had a stronger voice, allowing them to protest unfair conditions without immediate financial penalties.
However, the recent change in the law curtails these rights, prompting the question: What was the motive behind deliberately altering this law to favour employers alone?
This new law can be seen as a passport to labour exploitation, as it places workers in a vulnerable position where their grievances can be easily ignored.
As an employer myself, I understand the need for stability in the workplace, but justice must be upheld.
If employees are silenced through restrictive laws and fear of financial consequences, how can we claim to be a democratic and caring society?
The Judiciary, as the final pillar of justice, must scrutinize this law with legal wisdom and fairness.
Labour unions and worker representatives must revisit this issue and push for a revision that ensures both employers and employees are treated equitably.
Democracy thrives on the protection of rights, and limiting workers’ ability to demand better conditions contradicts Malawi’s democratic values.
It is time for an honest conversation about restoring balance in labor laws.
0 Comments