Have trade unions become more militant?

MK Pandhe, general secretary, Centre of Indian Trade Unions

'Since managements are denying workers the right to strike, all trade unions are going to come together. If you think such strikes are militancy, more such action will be seen'

Why did the Air India pilots go on strike? Because the management withdrew Productivity-Linked Incentives (PLI) and then kept it in abeyance. It was the fault of the management.

So why are the pilots being blamed? Jet Airways also did not allow the union to be registered. These are basic rights of workers and if the management denies these or violates labour laws, it can expect resistance. This doesn't amount to militancy.

There is more resistance as there is more repression now. More repressive factors are surfacing.

Prices are increasing and people are under stress. The deepening of the economic crisis would only mean more struggle on the part of workers. The earlier the government realises this the better.

Economic slowdown is what has changed between yesterday and today. The management wants to cut costs. And they find workers' costs are the only costs they can bring down. When they do that, they invite resistance.

On October 20, all trade unions are going to come together to observe a national protest day. Isn't this a sign of discontent among working class?

But why should going on strike be regarded as militancy? If you like to call it militancy, then more such actions will be seen in the future. All trade unions have come together, It is a unique unity prompted by the deteriorating working conditions of people. Besides, the denial of rights to form unions -- the basic issue of survival -- is driving all these actions.

With pulses at Rs 90 a kilogramme and sugar at Rs 40, the subsistence of the ordinary person is in question. The price increase has been allowed without any interference from the government. There has been no effort by the government to reduce prices.

Non-implementation of labour laws has also seen lot of companies denying workers the right to form unions. When the government becomes aggressive against the working class, they resort to lockouts. Resistance is sure to increase.

Many companies have faced lockouts and violence on the issue of the denial of the right to form unions. But I don't think that is the only factor. It is the uncontrolled escalation in prices that is responsible for the discontent in the labour in all sectors.

Militancy means extremism. But in the context of unions, it means struggle, not extremism. So unionism has certainly become more active in the sense that there is more struggle.

Take the example of Coimbatore. What happened over there is not a sign of militancy.

The reason why workers resorted to killing the official was that the latter refused to talk to them. It was not linked to Maoists. It was a spontaneous response. Workers demanded they be reisintated. The officer refused to talk. So they reacted. It is not that unions are more militant now.

The truth is that management is becoming more aggressive and rigid. When Jet went on strike, the management didn't think of closing it down. But when Air India strike happened, it threatened to close it down. It is nothing but rigidity. The unions were also ready to jump in the fray. It is just a reaction to the attitude of the management.

Manish Sabharwal, chairman, Teamlease Services

'The current unrest results from trade unions assuming businesses don't go through cycles and labour laws that position job preservation as a form of job creation'

Many trade union leaders are back to viewing all entrepreneurs and managers as myopic vampires. This stereotype does not allow for recognising that shareholders don't pay salaries or create jobs but customers do.

Besides there is huge truth behind Tolstoy's quip that all happy families are alike but every unhappy family is unique in its own way. Every labour conflict is different. The current round of labour unrest reflects a dangerous confluence of a ferocious business cycle -- a rapid and unforeseen shift from high tide to low tide -- with labour laws and trade union leaders who assume that businesses don't go through cycles.

Only a fool would deny that the last few years of low tide have not been a massive crisis for business and employment with customers practically on strike. But only a bigger fool would suggest that companies should be more careful in expanding employment in high tide (frantic hiring) to avoid the pain of low tide (capacity rationalisation).

The only people who champion this perpetual underperformance without bothering about crisis-handling are the privileged minority already in protected organised employment. India's trade unions, a classic example of Mancur Olson's interest groups, have falsely and scandalously positioned job preservation as a form of job creation.

Our labour legislation is possibly the most regressive taxation in the world by which a small group of labour market 'insiders' impose costs on the unorganised majority.

Indian trade unions face an existential crisis. Traditional issues -- provident fund rates, lifetime employment, 'one grade one pay' etc -- are hardly inspiring union membership for a younger workforce that cares about employability, performance-linked salary differentiation and portfolio careers.

More importantly, trade unions are victims of a friendly fire: A labour law regime created by them which ensures that job security, workplace safety and social security are distant dreams for 93 per cent of our workers who toil in the unorganised sector.

I believe that the issues, challenges and aspirations of organised and unorganised workers are contradictory and trade unions may be picking the wrong core constituency.

Public policy must confront trade unions because the journey from growth to poverty reduction requires a shift from from unorganised to organised employment.

But employers cannot substitute for the state in providing unemployment insurance or guaranteeing employment -- only customers can offer such guarantees -- because high tide is often followed by low tide.

A review of tenure laws must be accompanied by massive skill programs, stronger social safety nets and competition for poor value-for-money employer plans like ESI (health insurance) and EPFO (retirement). We must also review provisions of the trade union act that have lead to the politicisation of union activity by leaders who are disinterested in workers' welfare and are usually not company employees.

Our current labour law regime allows trade union leaders to position self-interest as national interest. But national interest is not served by choosing job preservation over job creation. Besides militant trade unionism only curbs jobs.

The cholesterol in our 3E (education, employability and employment) regime sabotages better lives for most Indians. Education and employability reforms are ideas whose time has come; how long will we allow the continued exclusion and bullying of 93 per cent of our labour force by a vocal but politically organised minority?