People's Democracy

 39TH SESSION OF THE ILC

Trade Unions Oppose Anti-Worker Legislations

          M K Pandhe

THE 39th Session of the Indian Labour Conference (ILC), held in New Delhi on October 16-18, rebuffed the attempts of the union labour ministry to get approval of the trade unions to the anti-working class legislations being introduced in Parliament as per the recommendations of the Second National Commission on Labour (SNCL). The trade unions unitedly opposed all the retrograde proposals of the labour ministry and demanded drastic changes in the proposed bills so that they can meet the requirements of the working class.

The CITU was represented in the conference by M K Pandhe, Kali Ghosh, A Soundararajan as delegates and P K Ganguly, S N Solanki and Ranjana Nirula as advisers. The CITU presented its viewpoints on all the agenda items placed before the conference in an exhaustive note.

The agenda of the conference was to consider the recommendations of the SNCL on rationalisation of labour laws, the proposed bill on the unorganised sector workers, and employment generation and social security for the unorganised sector workers.

The union labour minister, Sahib Singh Verma, who presided over the conference, made tall claims about India’s “vibrant” economy. “Economic reforms have created enormous possibilities of upward mobility. Indian economy has been rated as one of the fastest growing economies in the world”, he claimed. “Economic growth often demands more flexible labour markets, which means that many people may find themselves out of employment in spite of having the right kind of skill and qualification,” he stated. Thus he virtually justified the concept of jobless growth. Fully endorsing the policy of globalisation, Verma observed: “The Second National Commission on Labour had submitted its recommendations to gear up our workforce to face the challenges posed by liberalisation and globalisation and to frame the necessary support, both legislative and administrative. There may be divergence of opinion on the recommendations of the Commission, but we cannot deny the fact that our laws and systems need to be fine-tuned to match the new national aspirations.” For the union labour minister the requirements of MNCs and big business houses become the “national aspirations”. The working class was thus being asked to suffer and sacrifice to meet the aspirations for higher profits of the financial tycoons.

Hasubhai Dave, president of BMS, speaking on the occasion, criticised the policies of liberalisation and noted how they helped the MNCs and Indian big business. He criticised Supreme Court judgement on strike and demanded a new law to protect workers’ right to strike. G Sanjeeva Reddy, president of INTUC, also condemned the Supreme Court judgement and demanded reinstatement of all the victimised state government employees of Tamilnadu.

The representatives of the employers fully endorsed the government’s viewpoint and advocated acceleration of the pace of economic “reforms.”

Prime Minister, Atal Behari Vajpayee, while inaugurating the conference repeated the tall claims about the achievements of the economic policies of the NDA government. He said: “Reforms have begun to unleash the untapped productivity in the economy. It is helping us to better harness the nation’s resources. Despite many difficulties and obstacles our domestic industry has achieved robust growth last year.” He conveniently ignored the admission of the Economic Survey (done by his own government) about slowdown in the economy. Vajpayee chose to advise the trade unions:  “The new economic compulsions require workers and their trade unions to be sensitive to the needs of their business units. For example, restructuring of business models, reorientation of production, and flexibility in working conditions, are crucial for our business units to be competitive in the new environment. Whenever this has happened, it has benefited both business and their employees.”

Thus, the prime minister openly advocated the World Bank package for India and wanted working class to accept it and allow the business houses to exploit the working class most ferociously. He, however, had no word to say about the Supreme Court judgement attacking workers’ right to strike and the brutal repression launched by the Jayalalitha government in Tamilnadu against the state government employees and teachers who embarked on a glorious strike despite the reign of terror.

CITU PROTEST

Immediately after the speech of the prime minister, M K Pandhe, general secretary, CITU, stood up and asked the prime minister why he has not uttered a word about the anti-strike judgement of the Supreme Court and the arbitrary actions taken by Tamilnadu government against its employees. The CITU representative pointed out that the prime minister’s speech was an election speech and wanted to know what steps the central government would take to nullify the pernicious impact of the Supreme Court judgement and the vindictive actions indulged in by the Tamilnadu government.

The union labour minister tried to intervene and respond to the points raised but the CITU representative insisted that the workers’ representatives wanted a reply from the prime minister. Other central trade unions supported the CITU’s viewpoint and the prime minister had to say that he may not be agreeing with all the observations of the Supreme Court. He was prepared to have a discussion with trade unions provided there is no closed mind. ‘Some way has to be found out to the problem’, he stated.

GENERAL DEBATE

All the trade union representatives in their speeches during the general debate criticised the policies of globalisation being followed by the BJP-led NDA government. They did not agree with the claim of the PM and the labour minister that the economy was forging ahead. They pointed out the growing menace of unemployment and large-scale closure of industrial undertakings.

Most of the trade unions opposed the recommendations of the Second National Commission on Labour and the proposed amendment to the labour laws. They criticised the reduction in the rate of interest on PF and deterioration in the functioning of the EPF Organisation and the ESI Corporation.

The representatives of the employers, however, welcomed the policies of the government and demanded acceleration of the pace of economic reforms.

Intervening in the debate, M K Pandhe noted the decline in the tripartite machinery in India during NDA regime with most of the tripartite committees becoming defunct. Criticising the policies of globalisation, he pointed out that the working class was under severe attack and India’s ranking in human development has gone down from 123 to 127 out of 175 countries studied by the UNDP. MNCs are earning huge profits in India, while traditional and small scale industry is facing ruination.

The CITU warned the government that the united trade union movement would not allow the policy of indiscriminate privatisation of well-run and profit-making public sector undertakings and asserted that a movement including strike action to oppose the policies of the government would soon be on the anvil.

The representatives of the state governments were divided. Some supported the points raised by the trade unions, while others fully endorsed the views of the employers and the central government.

Md Amin, labour minister of West Bengal government in his intervention made it clear that some of the recommendations made by the SNLC were evidently anti-labour. He said: “Without going into the specifics, I would like to submit that West Bengal government would oppose any move to curtail the existing trade union rights. Curtailment of the right to strike and proposed freedom to the management to hire and fire the labour and to contract out non-core jobs completely would hit the interest of the working class.” He further noted: “We are of the view that rising unemployment and erosion of fundamental rights of workers are due to erroneous economic policies pursued in the country over the last 12 years.”

LABOUR LAW CHANGES: SHARP DIFFERENCES

The discussion on the agenda items reflected sharp differences of opinion among the representatives of workers and the employers. On the report of the SNCL, the representatives of the workers resolutely opposed the recommendations and both workers and employers’ groups recorded their divergent viewpoints. The representatives of the state governments did not give any specific opinion.

The workers’ group opposed the concept of ‘master and servant’ relationship visualised by the SNCL and criticised the policy of granting the power of hire and fire to the employers. They opposed the policies, which gave the management full powers to retrench the workers, declare lay off and close down the industrial undertakings. They disapproved the proposal to reduce the regular jobs and increase the contract jobs in industrial undertakings. The proposal to create a new judicial authority viz. Labour Management Relations Commission to conduct adjudication and arbitration proceedings was not agreed to by the workers’ representatives. They objected to the concept of labour flexibility, which would give huge powers to the employers to victimise labour. The employers, however, welcomed the proposals and wanted the government to take quick measures to implement the recommendations of the SNLC.

The Committee of the ILC, which discussed the agenda item on the proposed bill on unorganised sector workers, suggested that without ensuring need-based minimum wages, job security, decent working conditions and genuine social security the bill would not really serve the interest of the workers. It was emphasised that the recommendations of the national seminar, held by National Labour Institute, should be implemented in full to ensure the benefits for the unorganised workers. The committee suggested a separate bill for the agricultural workers, as recommended by National Commission on Rural Labour.

The trade unions pressed the point that the bill on unorganised labour should not be introduced in Parliament, without incorporating the suggestions given by the trade unions. However, in a press conference, the union labour minister made a unilateral announcement that the proposed bill was ‘unanimously accepted’ by the ILC. The CITU in a press statement has contradicted the labour minister’s announcement (see box).

Another committee discussed the question of employment generation; but its report did not oppose the downsizing of manpower by central and state governments and undertakings in public and private sectors. The CITU noted that when huge skilled and highly skilled manpower is unemployed today, mere training and skill-development will not help tackling the problem of unemployment in the country. The CITU criticised the policies of jobless growth implemented by the NDA government and the non-allocation of resources for any public spending for programmes of job creation, including development of infrastructure in the country. The representatives of the CITU demanded unemployment allowance for the unemployed to maintain their existence. It emphasised the need for land reforms and development of rural industry to generate employment. They demanded schemes to reopen all the closed units, to provide jobs to the workers, who have lost their only source of livelihood. The central government should recognise the Right to Work as a fundamental right.

On the question of social security for the unorganised sector, the government scheme was just an election gimmick. The CITU representatives in the concluding plenary session pointed out that the central government had no machinery to provide social security benefits to about 33 crore unorganised sector workers in urban and rural areas. Moreover, the government had not spelt out how the money would be raised for their social security. The CITU proposed a cess of one per cent of the turnover on industries having turnover of over Rs 100 crores. The union labour minister welcomed it but in the face of resolute opposition by the employers, he could not come out with any explanation on how the funding of the scheme would be undertaken. Trade unions opposed the cess on petrol and diesel, as it would affect ordinary people. When unorganised workers do not get jobs for the whole year how can they contribute to the scheme? This point was raised by the TU representatives. They further demanded a special bill for the home-based workers to protect their interests.

Thus the government could not get their policies endorsed by the Indian Labour Conference due to the strong opposition expressed by the trade unions. Regarding the problems of small-scale industries, the trade unions agreed to have a separate discussion for arriving at appropriate conclusions to protect the interests of the workers and the industry in the traditional and small-scale industries.

If the government despite the TU opposition tried to amend the labour laws unilaterally, it will have to meet stiff resistance of the united trade union movement all over the country.