HUMAN FACTOR
Soon after taking charge as the minister of state for labour and employment earlier this week, Santosh Kumar Gangwar said he would speed up labour law reforms and bring trade unions on board. If wishes were horses, the new minister would achieve this and much more. But here’s a sobering thought: Gangwar’s statement is almost a repeat of what his predecessors have been saying on their first day in office for many years, with insignificant results.
The fact is no government has had the courage to take on the trade unions beyond some initial feel-good statements and tentative actions. To be fair, the current government, after coming to power, announced a move to combine 44 labour laws into four codes — one each on industrial relations, wages, social security, and occupational safety, health and working conditions. However, except for the Code on Wages Bill, which has been introduced in Parliament, the others are gathering dust. The reason is obvious: No government wants to be seen as “anti-labour”. So successive governments have introduced Bills, but developed cold feet as soon as they created wide fissures in the delicate relationship between the labour, employers and the government of the day. This is unfortunate as several of these measures would have genuinely served the interests of labour.
Take, for example, one of the codes proposed by the current government. It drastically reduces the “allowed proportion of office-bearers (in trade unions) not engaged in the establishment or industry”. In simple language, this means outsiders. In the unorganised sector, the earlier threshold was half. The code provides that the maximum number can be two. For all other sectors, the code bars outsiders from being an office-bearer. This is a sharp reduction from the earlier permitted number of one-third of the office-bearers or five, whichever is less.
This is a great move as it is aimed at reducing the politicisation of trade unions and curtails the ability of these outsiders to hijack the agenda to suit their own interests — be it political or financial gains. The National Commission on Labour has given several reasons why outside leadership in trade unions should be minimised. Apart from the fact that outside leadership undermines the purpose of unions and weakens their authority, personal benefits and prejudices sometimes weigh more than the interest of the unions.
What needs to be understood is that politicians have made no bones about their role in the trade union movement. Several years ago, the general council of the Indian National Trade Union Congress actually passed a resolution recommending that all affiliated unions support Congress candidates in the elections. The same situation continues even though the method may have become more sophisticated. In many states, there are as many as a dozen political parties with their own labour wings vying for a foothold in the leadership position in plant-specific trade unaions. The rise of regional political parties in the past decade has resulted in further divisions of trade unions, affecting their unity and solidarity. There is no doubt that political unionism doesn’t offer any solutions to improve workers’ welfare and has in fact been a contributor in the fragmentation of trade unions and in making their work less relevant to the interest of workers. There is a huge gulf between what the union leaders think the workers need and the real pain points and demands of workers.
However, just a legal imposition would not be enough. The managements have to play a critical role by first ensuring that no victimisation takes place, even if the trade unions are led by insiders; and then provide extensive training facilities in the areas of leadership skills and management so that internal union leadership develops.
Many, including the International Labour Organization, say that it is a fundamental right of any union to form its own structure and elect its own members, and hence, no restriction should be put on the number of outsider office-bearers in a union. But the argument doesn’t wash. After all, trade unions are formed so that there are representative bodies of the workers, who can talk to the management and raise the real issues concerning them.
Gangwar would do a world of good if he can use his persuasive powers to convince trade unions that times have changed since the days when workers didn’t know what was good for them.