People's Democracy

INDIAN LABOUR CONFERENCE

Trade Unions Unitedly Challenge NDA Govt

W R Varada Rajan

THE present NDA government delayed convening of the annual session of the apex tripartite forum in the country viz. Indian Labour Conference (ILC), normally held in the second quarter of every year, till September last. When the session was slated to be held on September 2-3, 2002, it was postponed due to indisposition of the labour minister. This deferment was utilised by the government to include the Report of the Second National Commission on Labour (SNCL) as an additional item of agenda for the 38th session of the ILC, when it met at Vigyan Bhawan, New Delhi, on September 28-29. The Standing Committee on Labour (SLC) had decided the other items of the agenda comprising impact of globalisation, disinvestment, problems of small-scale sector and social safety net. The government proposal was to discuss these items in four different committees on the first day and take up the SNCL Report in the plenary session on the second day. The government move was to secure some sort of a green signal from the tripartite forum for a go-ahead on implementation of the Report of the Second National Commission on Labour.

The leaders of all the central trade unions, who met at the INTUC office on September 27 decided to stoutly oppose the unilateral move of the government to dispose of the SNCL Report in just one plenary session lasting a few hours. They met the labour minister, Sahib Singh Verma, the same evening and conveyed their protest.

The CITU pointed out that the copy of the Report was itself made available to the central trade unions only towards the end of the first week of September, 2002. The ministry of labour circulated an agenda paper on this item, which only incorporated certain brief highlights of the main recommendations of the commission on select topics. The agenda paper had not even framed the issues for deliberations on this subject. The report of the SNCL is quite voluminous and covers a very vast area. Contending that it would not be possible to have an in-depth debate on this report in just one plenary session in the ILC, the CITU urged that a special tripartite session be convened for an exclusive debate on the Report of the SNCL.

FAILED

ATTEMPT

Yet, the government placed the commission report for discussion in the ILC. The prime minister while inaugurating the ILC claimed that the commission report had endorsed ‘the broad thrust of for labour reforms envisaged by the government’ and asserted: "the government is currently examining the recommendations of the Commission and will take suitable action thereafter. He also appealed to the trade union representatives to extend support to the government’s agenda on labour reforms".

Even the brief deliberations in the ILC witnessed various social partners placing their viewpoints unambiguously, disagreeing with the main thrust and contents of the SNCL Report, which are anti-labour, to say the least. All the trade unions, in a spirited display of unity, cautioned the government against acting in haste and demanded an exclusive tripartite meet for an in depth debate on the report.

The CITU placing its views in writing maintained: "The SNCL Report has taken pains to elaborately narrate the negative impacts of the globalisation policies. But, it has chosen to accept the inevitability of the adverse effects on the living conditions of the workers and the people, as also of the economy, without question. It has fallen a victim of the TINA (There Is No Alternative) syndrome and gone ahead to fit the working class of the country in the window of "labour market reforms". It is an irony that the capital market reforms as well as labour market reforms will only benefit the business class, corporates and multi national corporations and ruin the lives of the workers and the common people. The CITU cannot go along with such a dispensation and rejects the anti-labour recommendations of the SNCL Report".

The president of the BMS, who was the vice-chairman from the workers group, speaking in the presence of the prime minister, ruled out any support to the government if it went ahead with the legislative changes on the lines recommended by the commission report. The INTUC president, who is a signatory to the commission report, also demanded that the government should come out with its views on the different recommendations of the commission and hold dialogue with all the trade unions for altering the bad and harmful aspects of the report.

Most importantly resistance to the government agenda on labour reforms came from the labour ministers of various state governments, who voiced their concern and stiff opposition to any unilateral move to give legislative shape to the recommendations of the commission.

The employers’ side, while complaining that the report was not ‘realistic’ and sought to place ‘unbearable burden’ on the employers, however, exhorted the government to initiate action on the report, even before Diwali, overlooking the trade union objections. But ultimately, the government had to yield and put on hold any action on the report and opted to have wider consultations again.

MISREADING

HISTORY

The prime minister in his speech attempted to give his own (mis) reading of history. He indulged in a totally unwarranted and out of context remark that "there was a time when some people advocated an irreconcilable class conflict in this relationship (between labour and capital). History has proved them wrong".

M.K.Pandhe, general secretary, CITU, resented the prime minister’s remarks and asserted that as the capital seeks to maximise profits by more intensive exploitation of labour, no one can wish away class conflicts and class struggle. He added: "History has not come to en end. It marches on. It will once again testify to the validity of class struggle. You will realise what class conflict is, if and when you decide to implement the anti-labour recommendations of the Commission".

Md. Amin, Labour Minister of West Bengal, also joined issue with the Prime Minister and said that the process of globalisation was inevitably leading to intensification of class conflicts, which was in evidence in ample measure, all over the world.

‘EVOLVE

CONSENSUS’

Md. Amin, speaking in the ILC pointed out that the state government had been kept quite in dark about the constitution of the composition of the Commission and the terms of reference made to it by the Government of India. He strongly objected to all the retrograde recommendations taking away the existing rights of the workmen. He voiced his apprehension that the Government of India might act on those retrograde recommendations keeping in abeyance other favourable recommendations. He urged the Government of India to take steps on the basis of consensus arrived at in consultation with the State Governments and the central trade unions.

His was not a lone voice. labour ministers from various other states , cutting across political affiliations were unanimous in demanding that the central government should consult the states, as labour was a subject in the concurrent list.

When the labour minister from Punjab referred to the plight of agricultural workers and demanded central legislation safeguarding their interests, Sahib Singh Verma commented that the Agricultural Workers’ Bill was referred to the states for their comments and the previous Government in Punjab had opined that such legislation would lead to social tensions.

The CITU representative referred to this comment and queried why the Trade Union Amendment Bill was not similarly referred to the state for eliciting their views? "As it is only the state governments who have to deal with the social upheavals resulting from the policies of the central government, it is essential that the States are duly consulted before initiating any step for implementation of the commission report", he urged.

‘A SETBACK

FOR REFORMS’

The elite columnists in the media, who vie with each other in carrying the ‘reforms’ virtually on their shoulders, had earlier made much of the BMS opting out of the July 15 Assembly of Workers and the INTUC chief’s statements, to predict that it would be a cake walk for the Vajpayee government in pushing through the labour law changes in Parliament. They are dismayed over the developments in the ILC, describing them as a setback for reforms. They have started blaming the government of yielding to pressures from trade unions and indulging in populism at the cost of reforms.

Even on issues of impact of globalisation and disinvestment, the trade unions were unanimous in unequivocally condemning the policies of the Government. The ILC deliberations and conclusions were, therefore, on predictable lines. While the ILC noted what was held out as positive and negative impacts of globalisation, by the employers and workers respectively, three divergent views of the employers, trade unions and the Government were recorded on the disinvestments issue. The ILC underlined the need to take measures like simplification of rules and procedures in respect of SSI sector.

The ILC, however, reached unanimity on the urgent need to provide a social safety net to all workers. It recommended evolving a national policy on social security, setting up of a National Social Security Authority, annual allocation, by the government, of 1 to 2 per cent of the GDP towards public expenditure on social security, ratification of the ILO conventions on the subject, functional and administrative integration of various social security institutions, besides several other measures. It is, however, doubtful whether the NDA government would assign any priority to these conclusions.

The trade union unity, which had reasserted its opposition to the ‘hire and fire’ labour policies of the NDA government, must also spring into action on the ground, mobilising the mass of workers in the struggle to defeat the anti-labour commission report.