🇮🇳 India vs 🇺🇸 United States

India (Asia-Pacific) and United States (Americas) are compared here using the three authoritative datasets on PlainEmploy: ILO EPLex, World Bank B-READY 2025, and OECD EPL. India has data from 2 sources and United States from 3, producing 2 metrics where both countries can be scored on the same scale. OECD membership status: India is not a member, United States is a member, which affects the length and depth of OECD EPL history available.

On the ILO EPLex composite (0-1 scale, higher = stronger termination protection), India scores 0.430 versus United States's 0.222 — a gap of 0.208 points in favor of India. The OECD EPL overall strictness index (0-6) shows India at 3.29 and United States at 1.31, meaning India has the stricter statutory regime by 1.97 points on OECD's composite scale.

Treat these scores as scaled summaries, not verdicts — they compress dozens of statutory rules into single numbers and can mask important detail. The largest normalized gap in this comparison is on OECD Overall (OECD), where India leads United States. To understand why the scores differ, open the full India and United States profiles to see tenure-scaled notice periods, severance and redundancy schedules, trial-period caps, third-party approval requirements, and dispute-resolution timelines. The underlying sources — ILO, World Bank, and OECD — are cited directly next to each table, and this comparison page reflects the most recent data release for each indicator at the time of build.

When you compare two countries side by side, the most common mistake is to assume that a higher score automatically means better protection for workers. Each index measures something slightly different, so the comparison only holds when both countries are read on the same scale. The ILO EPLex composite captures what the law says about termination, notice, and severance, while the World Bank Business Ready labor score weights how efficiently those rules play out for employers and the OECD index tracks long term statutory strictness for member economies. Two countries can sit close together on one measure and far apart on another, which usually points to a gap between the letter of the law and how it is enforced day to day. Differences also shrink or widen depending on the reference year, because reforms land in different countries at different times. Use the year labels next to each figure to confirm you are comparing comparable releases, and treat any single number as one input into a fuller picture rather than a verdict on its own.