Note

Whither Labour Movement?
Sankar Ray

The international Labour Organization (ILO) is worried about proliferation of casual and contract labour, more so as this practice is becoming increasingly rampant in the large corporate sector. That seems one of the reasons for assigning Prof Sharit K Bhowmik, professor and chairperson of the Centre for Labour Studies, School of Management and Labour Studies, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, the task of writing on the two-day strike of blue and white collar workers on 20 and 21 February for the global labour column in the ILO news bulletin. Giving a brief account about the decimation of permanent workers, especially in the large companies, Dr Bhowmik observed in the article "Permanent workers account for less than one-third of workforce in companies while the rest is through contract labour. Most of the automobile manufacturing companies function in this manner. Offices too have contractors employing security guards and even white collar employees".

In the article, which is yet to be published, Bhowmik, said that the system of casual and contract labour in the large corporate sector has reached wide ranging proportions. "These workers work alongside the permanent workers, are doing exactly the same type of work, but they are paid one-third or less wages paid to permanent workers," the TISS academic noted.

Contract or casual workers comprise what is known as the informal sector where wage level is very low. Unfortunately, the central and state labour authorities are neither keen nor armed with adequate statutory powers to checkmate this, leave alone the falling wage rate despite rising family expenditure gradient. They frequently engage contract labour in perennial nature of job which is illegal as per the Contract Labour (Abolition) and Regulation Act 1972. Ironically enough this Act is so flawed that in case of abolition which, of course, rarely takes place, there is no provision to absorb the contract labour in permanent category. All this justifies a national protest action like a national strike. The remedy lies in statutory imposition of a floor wage, necessary to keep workers productive for at least three decades as the workmen and their dependants are to be assured of take-home wages to keep a wolf from the door.

Of the ten demands, the central TUs submitted, before going for a nation-wide 2-day strike three are very important: a national floor wage of Rs 10,000, removal of casual and contract labour (since these are misused wantonly) and pension for all workers and, social security cover for informal workers. The minimum wage in the list of demands by the central trade unions, Dr Bhowmik thinks, is not high. In fact, it is "actually quite low for urban areas. Unionisation is difficult as these workers do not have security of employment nor do they have any post retirement benefits", he stated in the forthcoming article for the ILO, while supporting the demand for compulsory recognition of unions as an imperative for employers to sit with the existing TUs on the negotiating table.

The well-known labour sociologist welcomed the all-out unity for the strike action—INTUC, HMS, AITUC, BMS, CITU, UTUC, AIUTUC etc. But perhaps the soundest criticism of the inegalitarian state comes from the New Trade Union Initiative, the fast-growing TU centre which is not under the control of any political party. Although not one of the signatories, NTUI set out the rationale for the strike blaming the systemic violence. The principal crisis lies in the employers' dogged insistence on "sustaining capital's profitability. Unionised workers mean an increase in union power which, when sustained militantly, translates not just into winning rights to protected jobs and higher wages and benefits but better and safer working conditions, which to an employer only means—cost. It is this cost that capital is unwilling to bear and hence these rights that capital is unwilling to concede. The violence thus today is increasingly directed at the principal democratic right of workers to form and join unions of their choice." NTUI communique snapped fingers at "the collusive support of government. Government has conceded capital the 'right' to define the economy and has subordinated both existing statute and the government machinery to meet capital's needs." The government's concession to capital have been in the form of tax relief, capital subsidy, opening up of public utilities and natural monopolies to the private sector, and the transfer of vast tracts of land for the exploitation of natural resources. This has opened new areas for corruption which too has increased to unprecedented levels. But it has done more and much worse. It has undermined the livelihoods of the rural working people, in particular the most marginalised amongst them, the dalits, the adivasis, the religious minorities and of course women.

Frontier
Vol. 45, No. 35, Mar 10-16, 2013

Your Comment if any