The Tool Desk
Outbyte PC Repair FREERepair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Outbyte Driver Updater FREEScan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →India’s first COVID-19 lockdown abruptly stopped work for many people who depended on daily earnings, casual jobs or other insecure employment. For workers without savings, paid leave or reliable social protection, lost work could quickly mean lost income. When restrictions eased, returning to work did not necessarily restore earlier earnings: some people had fewer workdays, lower wages or unpaid wages, while migration disrupted access to jobs and support.
The evidence does not establish one national count of daily-wage workers who remained unemployed months later. The estimates available cover different populations and measure different things; they should not be treated as counts of individual workers who permanently lost their jobs.
What the lockdown estimates do—and do not—tell us
In its June 2020 rapid assessment, the International Labour Organization (ILO) estimated that 364 million or more workers were vulnerable to lockdown effects. The estimate included people in casual work, self-employment and regular jobs without social protection. It was a measure of vulnerability, not a confirmed tally of people who lost work or income.
A separate ILO analysis published in 2021 estimated that 104 million informal workers were directly affected by initial lockdown measures, and 69.5 million under relaxed notifications. These figures came from a methodology combining government restrictions on non-essential industries with an assessment of whether work could be done remotely. They are not a survey count of daily-wage workers who remained unemployed. The analysis found that most affected informal employment was in the informal sector, with other affected workers in the formal sector or private households.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minute2Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problems3Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitches#1 Best Overall
The two sets of estimates describe different populations and use different methods. Neither supplies a precise national total for daily-wage workers who continued to struggle after restrictions eased. The ILO’s 2020 assessment also noted that updated labour-force survey data was unavailable for its rapid assessment.
Why the first shutdown hit insecure workers so hard
For a person paid by the day, a closed worksite or a cancelled household job could mean that earnings stopped immediately. Casual workers and many self-employed people had little employment security; workers without social protection had fewer formal buffers against a sudden loss of income. The ILO’s June 2020 assessment warned that reduced working hours, layoffs, furloughs and income cuts could extend beyond the lockdown itself. It also described the crisis as worsening a labour market already facing slower growth and rising unemployment.
Rank #2
“Daily-wage,” “informal” and “migrant” do not mean the same thing. Daily-wage describes a way of being paid; informal employment describes a work or employment arrangement; and internal migration describes movement within the country. A worker could fit more than one category, but the groups are not interchangeable. Their risks also differed by occupation, location and access to job or income security.
Why easing restrictions did not mean earnings recovered
Employment recovery is not just a question of whether work resumed. A person might return to a job but get fewer days, receive a lower wage, or be owed pay. Those situations differ from being laid off, even though each can leave a household short of income. Migration added another disruption: workers who had returned to their home areas might have to find work there or travel back to places where jobs were available.
Different pressures in sending and receiving areas
In its 2022 analysis of the pandemic-induced recession, the ILO described how reverse migration altered local labour markets. In migrant-sending areas, including Bihar and Uttar Pradesh, returning workers increased the supply of labour and put downward pressure on wages. In areas that usually receive migrant workers, labour shortages could push wages upward, but workers might still find fewer days of work. A higher daily rate, where it occurred, therefore did not necessarily mean higher total earnings.
Households used savings and took on debt
The same ILO analysis describes households drawing on savings, selling small assets and taking on debt after workers could no longer sustain themselves in urban employment. Those choices can help meet immediate needs, but they also leave less financial room to manage future expenses. The impact could extend beyond the worker’s own earnings to household responsibilities and care work. The analysis discusses gendered pressures, but the evidence cited here does not establish a single nationwide estimate of how the burden differed by gender.
Reported cases show what wage insecurity could look like
A TIME feature published on 20 August 2020 reported the case of Tapos Mukhi, a construction worker whose wages were withheld and who later faced a new unpaid-wage claim after an injury. The feature also described a domestic worker in Mumbai who lost household jobs and back pay. These accounts illustrate particular experiences reported at the time; they are not representative statistics for all workers.
What the evidence says about the months after lockdown
An ILO situation analysis published in 2021 drew on data collected from October 2020 to January 2021 in Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu and Uttar Pradesh. It examined pandemic-related disruption to enterprises and workers in the formal and informal economy, including whether employers and workers had coverage and access to announced policy measures. Its three-state scope offers evidence about continuing disruption and support access, not a complete survey of India.
Best Value
That distinction matters when describing the aftermath. Restrictions easing, a programme being announced, or a worker finding some employment does not by itself show that lost income was restored or that support reached everyone who needed it. The available evidence documents mechanisms of continuing hardship, but does not justify a single national headcount of workers still unemployed months later.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.Relief programmes and the gap between announcement and access
A 2022 release from the Press Information Bureau (PIB), Government of India, listed measures including employment initiatives, support to low-wage employees, assistance for construction workers, food-grain and ration portability, and registration through the eSHRAM database. These are government-reported programmes and outputs. Their announcement or reported reach does not establish that every eligible worker could access them, that every worker received adequate support, or that assistance replaced lost earnings.
The ILO’s December 2020 roadmap for including internal migrants in recovery highlighted portable social protection, safe working and living conditions, access to justice and workers’ ability to organize. These were policy priorities, not proof that they had been implemented everywhere. Portability matters when people move between states or jobs; safe conditions and access to justice matter when work resumes under insecure arrangements; and collective organization can help workers raise concerns about pay and conditions.
Dagmar Walter, then Director of the ILO Decent Work Technical Support Team and Country Office for India, said the pandemic had “revived the dialogue around mainstreaming labour migration into India’s national development policy.” The statement appeared in the ILO’s announcement of 7 December 2020. Dialogue and policy proposals are distinct from whether individual workers could obtain support or recover stable earnings.
Quick Recap
How to read claims about the scale of hardship
- Vulnerability is not a job-loss count: the ILO’s 2020 estimate of 364 million or more covered several kinds of workers at risk from lockdown effects.
- Direct exposure estimates are not unemployment surveys: the ILO’s 2021 figures of 104 million and 69.5 million used a labour-supply methodology tied to containment rules and remote-work potential.
- Local evidence has a defined scope: the ILO’s October 2020–January 2021 data came from Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu and Uttar Pradesh.
- Programme reporting is not proof of universal receipt: government-listed measures and outputs do not establish individual access or adequate recovery.
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
