|
In yet another
warning signal to the NDA government in particular and the ruling classes as a
whole, more than 3 lakh workers converged on Delhi on February 26, in a massive
rally against the recommendations of the Second Labour Commission and other anti
worker steps being taken by the government. The huge turnout indicates once
again that the organised sectors of the working class are not going to silently
bow down to the imperialist dictated ‘industrial restructuring’ plans of the
comprador bourgeoisie and will not give up the rights that they have won through
numerous trade union struggles over the past few decades without a bitter fight.
The rally was held
under the joint banner of the Trade Union Joint Action Committee, and brought
together unions across virtually the entire political spectrum, excepting some
of the extreme right wing and ‘socialist’ unions aligned with the ruling NDA.
The unions affiliated to the revisionist CPI and CPM, besides some of the
Socialist parties were the largest force, but there was a significant
participation from a number of smaller trade unions, some affiliated to ML
parties and others belonging to local coalitions of trade unions that are
independent of the highly bureaucratic, centralised TU federations belonging to
different political parties. The massive size of the rally was clearly a
reflection of the increasingly militant mood among the masses of workers in the
factories and workshops across the country in the battle against the combined
onslaught of the Liberal-isation, Privatisation and Globalisation policies of
the government.
The march culminated
in a public meeting at Barakamba Road. Leaders of the different participating
organisations opposed the anti-labour — anti-poor economic policies of the
central government, and called upon those present to continue with their
determined opposition to the attempts to implement the recommendations of the
Second Labour Commission. Other demands raised were for the extension of pension
and social security to all sections of the workers, especially the unorganised
sectors, creation of jobs and provision of affordable health and education for
all. The rallyists also demanded the restoration of 12% interest on PF and the
removal of ceiling on bonus. Speaker after speaker opposed privatisation in the
name of disinvestment. The public meeting also condemned the war preparations of
US-UK and demanded that the Indian government should not lend any support to the
US – logistical, diplomatic or otherwise.
Subsequently a
meeting of the leaders of the Joint Action Committee held in Delhi on March 12
also gave a call for a countrywide industrial strike on May 21 as part of the
continuing protest on these issues. Earlier similar countrywide protests in the
form of rail and rasta rokos were held in many places on January 8 in response
to a call by the JAC. The mood among the participants at many places during the
January demonstrations was defiant and militant.
Later on March 25 to
27, employees of the oil PSUs across the country came together for a three day
bandh in protest against the government’s decision to permit the privatisation
of these units. The bandh was totally successful and was unitedly launched by
all the 27 different unions in the sector, which had come together in December
2002 to oppose privatisation. Trade unions of power and telecom PSUs also
extended their support to this action.
Similar protests had
been held in the case of the NALCO privatisation in Orissa, and this has now
been stalled. The opposition was from different sections of society, but the
workers played a significant role. All trade unions and officers associations
had set up coordination committees in the different units, which in many places
were at the core of the resistance.
It is clear that
despite the ruling class’ desire to totally dismantle the public sector, break
up the large units in the organised private sector, especially the powerful
unions in these plants, and shift production to smaller, dispersed units in low
wage, high surplus extraction industrial belts in selected pockets where forming
organizations of the workers is an extremely difficult task, the joint protests
by a number of unions coming together across party lines has prevented them from
fully implementing these plans.
In 1998 they set up
the Second Labour Commission and tried to use it to provide a cover to their
real intentions. However even this tactic has proved to be largely unsuccessful
and no ‘consensus’ has emerged through this process. The formation of the
commission was widely opposed by the working class, and a storm of protest has
greeted its recommendations, which were released last year (see PM, January 2003
for details).
The latest move by
the government is to therefore try to implement the proposals in a piecemeal
manner. They have now put some of the more controversial steps, like the
amendment to Sec. V B of the Industrial Disputes Act, which will virtually give
the management of all industrial units in the country full freedom to hire and
fire workers, and the proposal to abolish the Contract Labour Act on the
backburner.
Instead they have
tabled the Unorganised Sector Workers Act, 2003 in parliament. Interestingly,
the Congress government in Maharashtra has also placed the Maharashtra
Unorganised Sector Workers Scheme, 2003 before the assembly. These acts, not
only give a clear green signal to the widespread use of contract labour in
industry but have also tried to hold out a few sops in the name of welfare
provisions, like the provision of a pension. The act also claims that this
pension facility will be made available to all sections of the unorganised
sector. As a result some of the reformist unions and a small section of the
revisionist unions have welcomed the move.
The government hopes
to use this to split the unity of the workers that has been built up against the
labour law changes by tactics like these, and these unions may unwittingly play
into their hands.
Ironically, a deeper
analysis reveals that the ‘welfare’ provisions may ultimately end up as one more
means of diverting large amounts of money into the government coffers to enable
them to deal with the fiscal crisis and budgetary deficits. For example, the
bill proposes to collect from workers Rs. 2/- per day in rural areas; Rs. 3/-
per day in municipal areas; and Rs. 4/- per day in cities; as well as Rs. 4/-
per day from the self-employed. This will increase by Re one per day after 5
years. Even by conservative estimates the amounts collected will run into
hundreds of crores of rupees.
What does the bill
propose to do with this huge amount? In the section on Aims, the bill says it is
also meant to "…generate a source of Fund for developmental purpose",
which clearly opens the doors for the government to use this money for purposes
other than welfare of the workers.
There are numerous
other flaws in the scheme, even from a welfare point of view – primarily the
failure of the bill to make any payment compulsory for the employers, who under
the existing laws have to pay 12% of wages for Provident Fund + 4.75% for ESIC,
plus the whole amount of gratuity; the fact that the amount contributed by the
worker will never be repaid and s/he will only receive an amount equivalent to
8% as pension; as well as the fact that the government has made a provision for
diverting money from other welfare schemes like the Employment Guarantee Scheme
to fund its own contribution, shows the anti-labour nature of this plan.
Another crucial
aspect is the attempt to create a new category of ‘unorganised sector’ workers
by combining the contract workers in the industrial sector, construction
workers, etc., where the principal employer, who is responsible for implementing
the various provisions relating to workers rights, can be easily identified,
with other workers from the genuinely ‘unorganised’ sector and even the
self-employed. This will help the government to deprive the former of rights
under the existing laws.
The fact is important
because even the 2nd NLC accepts that "There is a trend in growth of casual
labour in the total workforce during all these years. From 27.2% in 1977-78, it
has gone up to 33.2% in 1999-2000" and "casualisation of workers has been
an inevitable result of the new economic trends". In fact though the
contract system has existed for many decades, it is important to note that
since the onset of liberalisation, while employment in permanent jobs has been
declining, there has been a huge increase in the number of contract jobs.
In the days ahead the contradiction
between imperialist capital and the comprador bourgeoisie on the one hand and
the working class on the other is bound to grow sharper and the struggle to
resist the changes being brought in by the government is sure to grow sharper.
|
