Egypt’s proposed labour law has stirred debate among trade unionists, rights advocates and political parties over whether it will strengthen workers’ protection or erode hard-won rights.
The House of Representatives approved the bill in principle on 25 February 2025. Detailed discussion was still under way when this report was published, before a final vote. The provisions and article numbers discussed here refer to the draft and committee deliberations at that stage.
The legislation principally concerns private-sector employment. Figures cited in the original reporting put private-sector employment at approximately 24.17 million people, with 37.6% of employed people working inside private establishments and 44.7% outside them. These shares concern employment, rather than the entire labour force, which also includes unemployed people. They should not be read as proof that every person in those categories falls within the bill’s legal coverage.
In November 2024, the Center for Trade Union and Workers Services (CTUWS) launched an online petition arguing that public consultation on the new labour law was a necessity. It criticised parliament’s failure to respond to demands for a wider discussion before passage.
The centre had requested hearings at the Senate’s Manpower, Energy and Environment Committee involving a broad range of labour representatives, particularly independent unions. It complained that the process instead relied on the ministry and the Egyptian Trade Union Federation, which it regarded as aligned with the government, without adequately representing independent voices.
New definitions, new forms of work
Article 1 of the government’s draft contained 38 definitions relating to employment and production. A CTUWS account of committee discussions highlighted changes covering harassment, bullying, women’s employment, irregular work and digital platforms.
The proposed definition of harassment covered workplace conduct, or conduct connected with work, involving sexual or obscene suggestions through gestures, speech, actions or other means, including electronic communication. Bullying was defined to include intimidation or ridicule through speech, displays of power, domination or exploitation of another person’s vulnerability or social circumstances.
The committee also considered provisions on maternity and breastfeeding leave, alongside rules governing foreign workers. Its discussions included requiring an employer to provide a departing worker with a certificate stating the duration of employment. The reporting described the removal of a reciprocity condition from the article governing foreign workers following an objection by the Labour Ministry’s adviser.
Another provision concerned a fund for protecting irregular workers, including payment of their social-insurance contributions. The aim described in the discussions was to bring more people in precarious employment into the insurance system.
The draft also recognised non-traditional forms of work, including remote work and work through digital platforms. Supporters presented that recognition as an attempt to adapt employment rules to technological changes.
Other committee discussions covered medical testing for drugs and infectious diseases, extending the deadline for submitting employee lists to the relevant authority from 15 to 30 days, and requiring an employer with at least 100 women workers to provide a nursery for their children.
On child employment, the draft provisions discussed in the report barred work below 15 while permitting training from 14. These were committee-stage provisions, rather than a claim that the complete bill had already become law.
Who gets a voice in the legislation?
Mona Ezzat, director of Al-Noun Foundation for Family Care and a researcher in economic and social rights, tells Zawia3 that a law governing the livelihoods of so many people requires much wider consultation.
She calls for both a public discussion involving civil society, the media and policymakers, and a full social dialogue among workers’ organisations, employers and the government, represented by the Labour Ministry. All groups affected by the legislation should be able to contribute, she says.
The ministry held meetings attended by male and female trade unionists, Ezzat acknowledges. But she considers those meetings insufficient for a law of this importance.
Her criticism extends to parliament’s legislative process. In her view, majority voting too often replaces serious engagement with opposing arguments, leaving little room to build agreement or correct imbalances. She believes the draft could prove worse than the existing law and would prefer retaining the latter rather than passing inadequate changes.
A labour law should balance the rights and responsibilities of workers and employers, Ezzat argues. It should not allow one side to dominate the other.
The right to strike is a central concern. Ezzat says both legislative restrictions and day-to-day practices weaken workers’ bargaining power. She points to security intervention and threats of dismissal as pressures that make collective negotiations unequal.
In her assessment, definitions of new types of employment and workplace misconduct will have limited value if workers cannot organise, negotiate or challenge employers without fearing retaliation.
Women’s work is still treated as an exception
Ezzat argues that the draft continues to treat women’s employment as exceptional rather than an ordinary right requiring effective guarantees. She says high unemployment and limited participation among women expose the gap between policy ambitions and practical opportunity.
She cites participation estimates of 20–25% while describing the scale of exclusion. Such figures need a specified year, age group and indicator: employment, labour-force participation and unemployment are different measures and cannot be used interchangeably.
Ezzat also criticises the assumptions behind assigning women responsibility for reconciling paid work with family duties. She points to Article 11 of the Egyptian Constitution, which guarantees equality across civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights while also requiring the state to help women reconcile family responsibilities and work.
The article further provides for protection of motherhood, childhood, female breadwinners, older women and women in greatest need. Ezzat’s concern is that measures framed around women alone may leave the unequal distribution of care within families untouched.
She refers to a 2015 statistical study when describing women whose combined paid and unpaid work can occupy 15–16 hours a day, sometimes reaching 18–20 hours. The original report does not identify the study’s sample or methodology sufficiently to establish those figures as national averages. Her broader point is that unpaid care and housework restrict women’s advancement and access to leadership.
Childcare support should be designed for families, Ezzat says, rather than assume that caring for children is solely a working mother’s responsibility.
She calls for leave arrangements that give fathers a meaningful role, and for nurseries accessible through either parent. Their opening hours must match working hours and their fees must be affordable if families are to benefit.
Workplace safety, in her view, also requires more than protection from physical injury. She wants the legislation to address psychological safety and the pressures workers experience on the job.
In June 2022, the International Labour Conference recognised a safe and healthy working environment as a fundamental principle and right at work. Ezzat argues that the bill should translate that commitment into practical protections, including measures addressing psychological harm.
International instruments provide several relevant standards. Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights addresses the right to work, fair conditions and equal pay for equal work. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights protects the right to work and just working conditions, alongside family and maternity protection.
Article 11 of CEDAW requires measures against discrimination in employment, including discrimination connected with marriage or motherhood. ILO standards also address equal remuneration for work of equal value and the position of workers with family responsibilities. These are benchmarks for assessing the draft, rather than a substitute for examining its individual clauses and their implementation.
The dispute over wages
Labour researcher Hassan El-Barbary believes the bill’s underlying philosophy is its central weakness. He tells Zawia3 that it approaches employment primarily as an economic question, while labour legislation must also have a strong social purpose.
A balanced law would address both, he argues. Instead, the draft was prepared amid economic instability while some provisions appeared to assume stable conditions. He sees a mismatch between the pressures workers face and the protection offered.
Annual wage increases are one example. The existing Labour Law 12 of 2003 provided a minimum periodic increase of 7% of the basic wage used to calculate social-insurance contributions. The draft under discussion proposed at least 3% of the insurable wage, a different calculation base.
El-Barbary considers the proposed increase inadequate in the face of rising living costs and criticises disparities between private-sector workers and civil servants. A comparison of the percentages alone, however, cannot establish the cash gain or loss: the wage base and the worker’s actual pay must also be considered.
Clarification: the draft’s proposed minimum is 3%, rather than 2.7%. Article 37 of Civil Service Law 81 of 2016 sets a general annual increase of 7% of the functional wage; separate annual legislation can set different increases. It is therefore inaccurate to describe 10% as the permanent rate established by the Civil Service Law itself.
El-Barbary argues that the insurable wage may fall below a worker’s actual earnings, including allowances and other payments. He warns that differences between basic, variable, total and insurable pay create room for confusing comparisons and weaken protection.
He also objects to allowing an employer facing economic difficulties to request a reduction in, or exemption from, the annual increase. He compares this with earlier exemptions from minimum-wage decisions, arguing that such arrangements undermine the purpose of protecting living standards.
“How can the state allow exemptions for an employer in economic difficulty while not exempting it from taxes?” he asks.
The researcher contrasts the structured grades used for civil-service pay with the lack of an equivalent wage structure in the labour bill. He says dividing wages into different components complicates the relationship between annual increases and a national minimum wage calculated on a broader basis.
The issue is not simply which percentage appears in the law, but whether a worker’s real income is protected when prices rise.
El-Barbary regards the draft as a retreat from gains achieved by workers over many years. He also believes it offers no fundamental solution for irregular workers and does not adequately distinguish irregular from seasonal employment.
People exposed to comparable hours, hazards and injuries, he argues, should not receive sharply different social protections solely because they fall into different legal categories. He calls for greater consistency across civil-service, regular private-sector and irregular employment.
He further criticises what he sees as insufficient wage protection, invoking ILO Convention 95 on the protection of wages and the need to safeguard workers when payment is delayed. This is his assessment of the draft’s adequacy, rather than a finding that it contains no wage provisions at all.
The Journalists Syndicate’s proposed changes
The Egyptian Journalists Syndicate submitted more than 20 observations to House Speaker Hanafy Gebaly. In his accompanying letter, syndicate head Khaled El-Balshy urged parliament to address concerns about pay, dismissal and industrial action.
The syndicate called for a single, clear definition of wages, relying on total pay, and an explicit definition of the national minimum wage. It wanted a more effective National Council for Wages and an annual increase of 7% of total pay.
It also sought a role for professional or labour unions in assessing employers’ requests to reduce annual increases, and opposed the possibility of exemptions from the minimum wage. Another proposal was unemployment assistance for people unable to find work.
On termination, it proposed at least six months’ notice for ending an open-ended contract as part of stronger safeguards against arbitrary dismissal. Notice alone, however, does not settle whether a dismissal is lawful.
The syndicate wanted the definition of a peaceful strike to encompass refusing work or not attending the workplace. It proposed allowing professional syndicates, as well as labour unions, to organise strikes or receive notification, and reducing the advance-notice period for employers and the administrative authority from ten days to three.
The Bread and Freedom Party, then under establishment, also warned that the bill could damage workers’ interests. It called for stronger trade-union freedoms, a higher annual increase and removal of restrictions it regarded as making lawful strikes unnecessarily difficult.
The party demanded an end to employment agencies it considered exploitative, citing Article 7 of ILO Convention 181 on charging workers recruitment fees. The convention regulates private employment agencies and generally restricts fees charged to workers, subject to defined exceptions; it does not prohibit the existence of such agencies altogether.
The party’s other demands included raising the proposed annual increase from 3% to 7% and making notification to the labour office sufficient for a strike, in line with its interpretation of constitutional and international protections.
For the researchers and organisations interviewed, the test is whether the bill produces enforceable rights in the workplace: adequate pay, security against arbitrary dismissal, equal treatment, safe conditions and a practical ability to bargain collectively. New definitions alone, they argue, cannot achieve that balance.
