LABOUR MINISTRY SUGGESTIONS ON JOBS

Making Labour Markets Flexible For Employers

On October 28, central trade unions, viz the CITU, AICCTU, AITUC, BMS, HMS, TUCC, UTUC, and UTUC(LS), sent the following letter to K M Sahni, secretary, ministry of labour and employment, government of India.

WE have for reference a copy of the presentation on “Making Labour Markets Flexible: Suggestions for Consideration” made by the ministry of labour and employment before the parliamentary standing committee on labour on October 5, 2005, seeking our considered views on the suggestion made therein.

It is indicated:  “the note had been drawn up by the union labour and employment secretary in consultation with his officers.” We are at a loss to comprehend why a set of officials of the labour ministry chose to prepare the note suggesting labour law changes, without consulting the central trade union organisations and violating the commitment of the present government in its own NCMP. We take a very strong exception to such a procedure adopted and to directly placing these views to the parliamentary standing committee on labour, on such an important subject, admittedly having “wider ramifications.” We wonder whether this has a hidden motive as the very same subject is listed, inter alia, for discussions in the ensuing Indian Labour Conference to be held on the December 9 and 10, 2005.

The presentation suggests the note that has been drawn up “is the outcome of innumerable earlier discussions on the subject of labour reforms and also keeping in mind what was discussed with the employers’ and the employees’ representatives at formal sittings on March 29 and 31, 2005 respectively.” By implication, it seeks to present that the entire discourse on the subject had been confined to “making labour markets flexible,” which in our view is a misrepresentation of facts and events.

We wonder how your ministry had chosen to totally sweep beneath the carpet a host of the suggestions or proposals made by the trade unions and cherry picked the proposals made by the employers only for the present exercise.

 
We do not want to dwell at length on the general remarks made in the presentation as a backdrop to the wish list on labour reforms appended. But, we deplore your averment that both the trade unions and the employers “are protecting their respective turf” and “sadly nobody is talking of the youth of the country, the unemployed graduates, the school drop-outs, whose future is at stake.” We wish to refute the allegation with all the emphasis at our command as at least from the trade unions side we had consistently been raising the issues of employment generation, lifting the ban on recruitment et al and opposing downsizing in both the public and private sectors, keeping in view the interests of the youth of this country. While your sweeping remarks are contrary to this fact, the specific suggestions mooted in the note only make a mockery of the concern expressed over youth employment. Fact remains that if somebody is least concerned about youth unemployment, it is the government which is bent on reducing the employment potential in the country through its liberalisation, privatisation and globalisation policies.

 
The trade union movement has all along been resisting these policies of jobless growth, which are further aggravating the already menacing unemployment problem and placed several suggestions in various fora to reverse this trend. We find that your note seeks to intensify this trend by suggesting that the ongoing downsizing by the government, industry’s obsession with cutting costs, in its quest for a slice of the globalising pie, wanting only seasonal workers etc. must be accepted as an unalterable phase and a quest for anything to the contrary would be a sheer folly to try and live in splendid isolation is totally unacceptable to the trade unions.

We cannot but express our anguish that the suggestions made in the note are nothing but echoing the employers’ demands for unfettered rights for hire and fire, albeit couched in a different language.

The very premise that the emerging reality in the world of work is increasing use of contract labour and that it should be formalised in the legal framework reflects a flawed thinking and has ominous portents. It is strange that the conclusions of the International Labour Conference --- to which the government of India is a party --- that the units and workers of the informal sector should progressively be mainstreamed into the formal sector is summarily negated by this suggestion.

 
Even according to official statistics, 93 per cent of the workforce in the country is in the informal sector, where practically most of the labour laws remain inoperative. In this background, we are shocked to find the government abandoning the every concept of creating durable employment in the formal sector. Worse still, should the government choose to cater to the greed of the employer class to push the entire labour force --- cent percent --- into informal work?

 
Though the presentation assumes the National Common Minimum Programme (NCMP), adopted by the UPA government, to be a pertinent factor under the given circumstances, the suggestions cover the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 as well. The NCMP stipulated that “No automatic hire and fire; dialogue to be pursued with industry and trade unions regarding changes in labour laws while fully protecting the interests of workers.” It also envisaged that the Industrial Disputes Act will not be tinkered upon and decision on reforms will be by “consensus.” The proposals made in the note violate all these aspects of NCMP stipulations on labour laws.

 
The post liberalisation period is also the period of increasing incidence of poverty in absolute numbers. A major section of the poor people are ‘working poor’ mostly engaged in unorganised or informal sector occupations. Whatever is being proposed in the note in the name of labour reforms will spread greater informalisation in workplace and deepen the incidence of poverty, instead of generating decent employment.

 
The direction of the labour law reform should be just opposite to what is being proposed. Amendments are, of course, needed to change the outdated and obsolete provisions in the existing laws such as Payment of Bonus Act, Provident Fund Act, Gratuity Act, minimum coverage in some of the statutes etc. and not in the manner suggested in your communication. Besides, the government should take speedy steps to legislate the long-awaited enactments on unorganised and agricultural workers. Measures are also called for strict implementation of the existing labour legislations, which is in a state of disarray.

 
These suggestions for amendments to the Industrial Disputes Act and Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act are aimed at further constricting the area under the coverage of labour regulations and expanding the employers’ discretion indefinitely in the entire workplace of the country. Two bills already introduced in parliament, viz the Labour Laws (Exemption from Furnishing Returns and Maintaining Registers by Certain Establishments) Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions Bill 2005 and the Small and Medium Enterprises Development Bill 2005, are also intended to usher in total anarchy in industrial relations. 

 
In fine, we view with resentment these suggestions and convey our total opposition thereto.