People's Democracy(Weekly Organ of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) |
Vol. XXXIV
No.
51 December 19, 2010 |
43RD
SESSION OF INDIAN LABOUR CONFERENCE
Govt
Stand Encourages Employers’ Obstinacy
K Hemalata
THE
43rd session of the Indian Labour Conference (ILC) met on November
23-24, about
two years after the 42nd. As per the decision of the Standing Labour
Committee,
the agenda items discussed in the 43rd session were almost the same as
in the
42nd: Global financial downturn – its impact – job losses –
comprehensive
package for protection of labour force; Problems of contract labour,
social
security, wages etc, and Amendments in the Contract Labour legislation;
and
Employment generation and skill development. Despite discussing for the
third
consecutive session the issue of contract labour that is becoming
extremely
pressing, the Indian Labour Conference could not take a common stand on
the
issue due to the obstinacy of the employers’ group, which probably was
encouraged by the contents of the inaugural address of the prime
minister
himself.
PM
FLEXIBLE TO
EMPLOYERS’
NEEDS
The
prime minister, who inaugurated the 43rd ILC, could not find enough
time to
hear the views of the labour representatives. But he made it amply
clear as to which
side of the line he stood on the issue of labour laws. Completely
ignoring the
fact that around 94 per cent of workers in the country were in the
unorganised
sector where labour laws were either not applicable or not being
implemented,
Dr Singh said there was a need to consider the possible role of some of
the
labour laws in “contributing to rigidities in the labour market which
hurt the
growth of employment.” He indicated the willingness of the government
to amend
the labour laws to make them more flexible, of course to suit the needs
of the
employers. This naturally set the tone for the employers who stood
their ground
on continuing with the inhuman exploitation of the workers through the
contract
labour system.
Dr
Singh had nothing to say by way of reassuring the workers who
demonstrated
unprecedented unity by going on an all-India strike on September 7 on
five
major demands including price rise, effective implementation of labour
laws,
adequate funds for universal social security for the unorganised sector
workers, job protection and against disinvestment. Besides stating that
his
government was aware of the need to control price rise but was facing
difficulties, he harped on his favourite theme of commitment to
“economic
reforms with a human face” and “the need to sustained growth of 9-10
per cent
to make a dent on poverty, unemployment and under development.”
The
CITU delegation to the ILC comprised its president A K Padmanabhan,
general
secretary Tapan Sen and secretaries Hemalata and Kashmir Singh. The
views of the
CITU on the agenda items were explained in a note that was circulated
in the
ILC.
Countering
the claim of the government that India was able to come out of the
impact of
the global economic crisis without much suffering because of the
initiatives of
the government, the note pointed out that employment and social
protection of
the workers were left entirely to the mercy of the employers who were
provided
with four stimulus packages worth lakhs of crores of rupees, without
linking
them with job protection as unanimously demanded by the trade unions.
The gross
profit earned by the corporate sector increased by around 36 per cent
every
year including 2008–09 and 2009–10 when the global economic crisis had
its
worst impact. The proportion of profit to the wage bill, which was 44
per cent
in 2001, rose to 176 per cent in 2008, indicating that the entire
additional
value generated through GDP was cornered by the employers. This was the
result
of the increasing exploitation of the workers, particularly those
employed
under irregular employment.
The
CITU strongly criticised the agenda note of the government on contract
labour
for dealing more with the concerns and problems of the employers and
trying to
justify and finally seeking to legalise the violations of the existing
law on
contract labour. The agenda note was conspicuously silent about the
unlawful
deployment of contract labour even in regular production jobs or the so
called
‘core jobs’ and denying them minimum wages. It demanded that employment
relations should be redefined linking the principal employer to the
worker at
the lowest level, outsourcing be treated as contract, equal pay for the
same
and similar work to be incorporated in the main body of the
legislation,
regularisation of contract workers deployed in permanent or perennial
jobs,
minimum wages prevalent in the company, etc.
PALTRY
GROWTH
IN
EMPLOYMENT
On
the agenda of employment generation, the CITU note pointed out that
between
2005 and 2008 when economic growth was robust, the employment generated
was
only eight lakhs per year. In fact, this was the lowest rate of job
growth in
the last three decades for which data are available. CITU
representatives
pointed out that the Report on Employment and Unemployment Survey,
conducted by
the Labour Bureau of the Ministry of Labour and Employment, has
recorded the
unemployment rate as 9.4 per cent while it was higher at 10.1 per cent
in the
rural areas. The CITU demanded adoption of an employment intensive
growth and
development strategy and immediate lifting of the ban on recruitment
and
stopping the drive to abolish the existing posts in different central
and state
government departments and public sector undertakings. It has pointed
out that
simply ensuring strict implementation of the eight hour working day
would
create lakhs of additional jobs. It has also suggested extension of
employment
guarantee act to all individuals, to urban areas and filling up of the
backlogs
for SC/ST and OBC reserved posts etc as measures that would generate
employment.
The
ILC constituted three separate committees to discuss each of the agenda
items. While
the conference committees on global financial crisis and employment
generation
made unanimous recommendations, the employers and workers’ groups in
the
committee on contract labour were divided on the major issues.
The
conference committee on ‘Global Financial Downturn’ recommended strict
implementation
of labour laws on lay offs, retrenchment, job losses, closures etc,
devising of
broad based social security including unemployment insurance, credit at
concessional rate of interest to micro, small and medium enterprises
besides
traditional and export oriented industries, incentives to labour
intensive
industries, formulation of urban employment guarantee scheme, adequate
funding
to the Unorganised Workers’ Social Security Fund, extension of the
scope of
public distribution system to all unorganised workers in terms of
commodities
and coverage, investment in education and health care in rural areas
etc. The
committee also recommended more investment in infrastructure,
non-conventional
renewable source of energy, agro-based industries so as to stimulate
domestic
demand, fixation of national floor level minimum wages, extending
employment
guarantee from 100 to 180 days etc as long term measures. The committee
was of
the view that the stimulus and financial packages should continue and
provide
more focus on employment generation to compensate their loss in wages
or job
losses due to the economic slowdown.
The
conference committee on ‘Employment Generation and Skill Development’ unanimously recommended that employment
generation should be at the top of the agenda of the government and
that each
programme/scheme/economic activity of the government should look at
this
aspect; all round development of agriculture should be taken up as a
priority
with allotment of adequate funds for comprehensive infrastructure
development
in the rural areas, investment in agro based industries etc, increase
in the
workdays under MGNREGA to 200 days in a year and extension of
employment
guarantee to urban areas, ensure implementation of minimum wages of the
state
governments to the workers of MGNREGA, lifting of the ban on
recruitment in
public sector and government departments, broadening the definition of
economic
activity to include a number of women centric work and activities like
home
based work, etc, increase the wages of the Anganwadi employees and
provide them
with social security benefits etc.
Though
the conference committee on ‘Problems of Contract Labour, Social
Security, Wages
etc, and Amendments in the Contract Labour Legislation’ could not come
to a
consensus on the recommendation, it adopted a unanimous resolution that
all
efforts should be made to ensure that the existing provisions of the
Contract
Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970 and rules made under it are
implemented in letter and spirit; that the labour enforcement machinery
in the
centre and states should be strengthened by providing requisite
manpower and
other logistic facilities so as to ensure effective implementation of
related
legislations; that tripartite state advisory boards be constituted at
the
earliest; and that payment to contract workers be made through banks.
EMPLOYERS
GROUP’S
OBSTINACY
While
the workers’ group and the state governments’ group unanimously
supported the
proposals that where the contract labour performed the same or similar
kind of
work as the workmen, directly appointed by the principal employer, the
wage
rates, holidays, hours of work, social security and other conditions of
service
of the contract labour shall be the same as are available to the
workmen on the
rolls of the principal employer. This provision, which exists under the
existing rules, needs to be incorporated in the principal act. They
also
recommended that the threshold limit of 20 for applying the act should
be
removed. The employers’ group did not agree with these proposals. The
state
governments’ group agreed to the suggestion of the workers’ group that
workers
should be absorbed/regularised in the event of abolition of contract
labour
under Section 10(2) of the Act, the employers’ group did not agree to
it.
Even
while increasingly employing contract labour in the same jobs done by
the
permanent workers and in jobs of perennial nature, the employers put
forward the
argument that they have to ‘look at the education and skill levels’ and
were
not ready to extend the same benefits. The argument of lack of skills
was
totally rejected by employee representatives. Kashmir Singh countered
the
employers’ argument asking ‘If the contract workers are not well
educated and
have low skills, why employ them at all and lower the quality of
industrial
production?’
Participating
in the discussion, Tapan Sen criticised the lack of seriousness on the
part of
the government to practise tripartism in letter and spirit, except for
the
symbolic act of calling the Indian Labour Conferences as a ritual. He
lambasted
the short sightedness of the employers in their eagerness to garner
profits of
denying the due benefits to the workers, which was not only harming the
workers
but the country and its economy as well.