What's new

Indian workers strike over Modi labour reforms

Maybe the labor unions are also getting too strong?

We have examples from UK's own experience with unions who are able to exercise too many rights. Another example is right next door where our state-run enterprises over-employ based on political affiliations and then firing them becomes impossible due to strikes and protests.

I understand why Modi wants to privatize and boost businesses and and I have a similar opinion on this.

Its politics, Leftists have been trying everything to stop reforms from happening. Reforms like GST,Land Bill and Labour reforms will only increase India's Growth Trajectory and hence weakening their political base even further.
 
.
Its politics, Leftists have been trying everything to stop reforms from happening. Reforms like GST,Land Bill and Labour reforms will only increase India's Growth Trajectory and hence weakening their political base even further.
This is the reason I don't like the idea of state-run enterprises. They become a socialist hotspot and then fixing them becomes next to impossible while they drain valuable financial resources out of the economy.
 
.
Maybe the labor unions are also getting too strong?

We have examples from UK's own experience with unions who are able to exercise too many rights. Another example is right next door where our state-run enterprises over-employ based on political affiliations and then firing them becomes impossible due to strikes and protests.

I understand why Modi wants to privatize and boost businesses and and I have a similar opinion on this.

Privatization is already happening and that is not the issue. The labor strike is for a different reason. I found this nice explanation by a user on reddit India.


"The Labour laws as originally drafted were and still are amongst the most toughest laws and completely favour the workers. It is a good thing you must think, but it is not. It is a effed up thing for the workers and a bonus for employees.

Our labour laws are so complex, dense and retarded and not framed with anything resembling a market response or a equal balance for both employees as well as employers. It was framed from a very socialistic (I would even say hard core communist framework) pov. A small sampling (I am not a Lawyer, so these provisions are what I have read and may not be fully representative of the laws) of these provisions read like an insane wtf is this cr@p list.

  • Women cannot work night shifts or any shift after 1900 hours. In this law we have some high level company such as Burkina Faso, Algeria, CAR, Chad etc that have a similar law.
  • Any firm that employs more than a 100 people has to get permission from the govt to fire or even suspend close the plant down
  • Now any of the parties concerned have an issue? Good luck getting it through the courts, average labour disputes last 7-8 years at a MINIMUM.
  • You only need a minimum of 7 people to form a union with 30% of them consenting to form a union. Imagine running a SME industry with 15 people, theoretically you might even have two different unions effing things up.
  • Have a good month or two, expect a seasonal spike in business? Best of luck with hiring temp staff as even the hiring of contract staff needs to go through the Labour Ministry and approvals are needed.
  • You run a factory of more than 10 people (now 20), best of luck - you have to file annual documentation with the labour department who can and will run inspection visits at random and these are an absolute pain in the @rse and nothing but a means to shakedown the owner for bribe money
What does all this mean? A gigantic bureaucracy, inspection raj, license raj, approval raj, reapproval raj, bribes bribes bribes, bribes all over the effing place.

How do companies and indeed even SME's cope? Contract labour.

This is why I said these laws, ostensibly created to help the labourers, ends up effing them in the arse. Contract labourers are a legal loophole and exist in some form of babu limbo. They can't (iirc) form unions, minimum wages do not apply to them and basically the corporates (esp the large ones) misuse this all the effing time. I think only some 15% of our labour pool is in the organised employment sector, 90% are out of it. DESPITE THIS, India loses on average 5% of her mandays thanks to strikes lead by mostly politicalised unions.

Secondly (aside from our own structural problems) there is this school that suggests that very strict labour laws in what is essentially an agrarian economy such as ours will only hurt the economy. They suggest that lax labour laws to start with, which indirectly boosts the manufacturing sector, resulting in wages rising on account of the law of demand and supply is a more organic way of going about it.

China or S.Korea are stellar examples of this, though the US is not, so take this theory however you will.

Why are people against it? Because the media that is supposed to inform them, has decided to go with the theme of "crony capitalism" and the "secular" politicians in India have joined the bandawagon. Essentially, people are opposing it just because Modi / BJP.

Sure, there are some real fears (not justified imo) about how corporates can exploit labourers, but the point is, this is already happening in spades. It would be better imo to have laxer labour laws, but eliminate this concept of "contract worker" which ACTUALLY allows corporates to you know, abuse the labourers.

When I say labour inspections, I need to clarify on what these actually are (I have seen this bs happening right before my eyes).

India has idk some 50 bloody central / state laws, labour laws that as pedantic as, the PF act needs to be displayed at a prominent place (check your office cafeteria, it will have this). You have bs like mandatory attendence registers (in an era when a biometric scanner is way more accurate), you then need a "wage register". Every month you need to submit the PF statement, and have proof of this etc etc. Now any non compliance? It is effing arbitrary and the "inspectors" won't issue a certificate WHICH means you can't do business. THe solution? Pay a bribe. In Chennai, I know for a fact that Steel mills with a reported turnover of Rs 5 C and above (annually) are shakendown for Rs 5,00,000 as a bribe. THIS IS ONE UNIT. Also you can simply bribe some clerk in the office and ensure you NEVER get an inspection ever and the ways and means of making or paying bribe money is endless.

Now can you see how useless and pointless these retarded laws are? "
 
Last edited:
.
An alternate narrative:

-------------------------------------

With today's all-India strike, trade unions are signing their own death warrants

by R Jagannathan Sep 2, 2015 13:50 IST

  • Email

  • Screengrab from CNN-IBN

    The problem with unionism in India is that it has not kept up with the changes in the economy. The old world of the shopfloor is shrinking, as most economies depend on knowledge and skills to derive competitive advantage. Growth is driven by services, not agriculture and manufacturing. Today, not only companies, but countries also compete.

    It is not possible for countries to protect workers as they have to be flexible enough to attract investment. Barriers to trade and competition are falling, and competitive advantage can be temporary and fleeting. In this scenario, workers cannot demand eternal protection and certainties on incomes and career growth. But unions are stuck in the old paradigm. They are old generals fighting the previous war.

    Does the new economy make unions redundant? Absolutely not. We still need workers interests to be protected as individual workers cannot counterbalance the power of business. But unions have to fight for different things today from what they were fighting for before.

    For example, in an economy where yesterday's monopoly can be reduced to a loss-making carcass, should workers be demanding security of lifetime jobs or regular investments in upskilling? Should the unions be demanding more fish or the ability to catch more fish?

    Secondly, should unions be opposing privatisation or seeking a safety cushion against arbitrary downsizing in companies to be privatised - including the right to be retrained and offered alternative job placements within a reasonable span of time? Can public sector unionism help Air India survive without endless taxpayer handouts? Can a Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited be profitable with its bloated workforce? Can a loss-making public sector electricity sector ever ensure low-cost power that is the key to more growth and jobs? Overmanning temporarily bloats union power while ensuring that all future jobs are created outside the organised sector.

    Thirdly, should unions be campaigning for an end to contract labour or better compensation and benefits for them? Today, contract workers hold the keys to the survival of many manufacturing units, and making all workers permanent is the surest way to ensure more automation in manufacturing in future. Which means less semi-skilled jobs.

    Fourth, today union power is concentrated in the public sector - but the public sector has never been more irrelevant to the country's or customer's needs. If the unions want to retain their clout, they need to make public sector units financially strong, not weaker. Take the example of the bank unions which are supporting today's strike. I don't need the State Bank of India to get my banking jobs done any more. I can get my work done faster, if not better, with any private sector bank. If I want a mobile phone, the chances are I will not go to a BSNL or MTNL for a connection. I seldom use Air India for air travel, and, but for the public sector electricity discom monopoly, I would probably use a private power supplier for my needs. At the very least it would send me bills in a language I understand.

    The unions should ask themselves: who really, really needs the public sector anymore? And if they want the public sector to survive, they should ask themselves another simple question: are workers' jobs best protected in a public sector that is productive and profitable, or when it becomes a bleeding ulcer like Air India?

    The unions, if they have the stomach for it, should ask themselves another question: should they be batting for self-serving causes or also be fighting on the same side as consumers? They should remember that India has 1.25 billion consumers but only a few million employees in the organised sector. Should they be seeking the support of 100 percent of the population or the two percent of Indians who happen to have a cushy organised sector job with all benefits.

    The consumer versus unions argument was best illustrated in another strike yesterday (1 September) in Mumbai - by the kaali-peeli taximen's union which took taxis off the road to protest against competition from app-based taxi aggregators like Uber and Ola. Kaali-peelis went off the road, but no taxi user was amused. While the aggregators did good business, citizens were reminded yet again why kaali-peelis were not consumer-friendly or dependable. The app-based taxi companies have one simple consumer-friendly USP - cabbies cannot refuse a ride if a cab is free at any point of time.

    The kaali-peelis have already lost the war. They should in fact shift allegiance to app-based aggregators and benefit from the increased incomes. By listening to the politically-affiliated unions, they have written their own death warrant.

    India's unions have a choice; they can choose to really help the working classes they claim to represent by helping them to adjust to the new realities or play undertakers to the idea of unionism in general. The working class will move on to improve its lot - as the drivers running app-based taxi services have done - leaving unions in the dust.

  • Source - First Post
 
. . . .
Any politicians come out to openly support this?
They don't have to. In India every large trade union is affiliated to one of the major political parties. INTUC is affiliated to Congress Party and BMS is affiliated to the ruling BJP. AITUC is affiliated with the Communists. When a strike is called by one trade union, and when the other trade unions support the strike we will know which political party is behind the strikes.

Now, AITUC (commies) called this strike and INTUC (congress) is supporting this. BMS (BJP) has refused to join.
 
Last edited:
.
Mumbai: The nationwide strike called by trade unions on Wednesday across sectors has paralysed critical services, including normal banking operations.

The strike has been called by the trade unions to press their 12 demands and despite assurance from labour ministry on Tuesday evening that the government is ‘positively’ working on at least nine demands.

The unions are striking work on issues including job creation, control of prices of essential commodities, guaranteed minimum wage of Rs 15,000 to all workers, removal of ceiling on bonus and gratuity, extending maternity leave benefits to all women workers and strengthening social security funds, among others.
Also, they are against foreign direct investment in key sectors such as railways, reforms in labour laws, privatisation and disinvestment in public sector units.

The unions are fully within their rights to press their demands on some of these issues such as guaranteed minimum wage, maternity benefits to all workers, since these are specific to employees' welfare.
But, some others, like price control of essential commodities, disinvestment and more job creation, are larger economic issues.
Similarly, opposing disinvestment and privatisation of state-run companies are regressive in nature and against the very reform agenda that is much needed to revive the economy.
The government has already assured that it is working on the minimum wages Act, calculation of bonus and pension amounts. The labor ministry has promised that the trade unions will be taken into account whenever labor law reforms are undertaken. But the trade unions decided to go ahead with the strike plan despite these assurances.

It would be just a wishful thinking to imagine the country without trade unions for the simple reason that major trade unions enjoy the backing of political parties. Traditionally, trade unions have commanded a major say in the running of state-run entities, especially banks.
These unions have acted as a corrective force against the excesses by managements and unfriendly government policies.
In September 2013, the country's largest lender State Bank of India had unleashed a severe attack on its trade unions by discontinuing the check off facility for unions (which they use to collect monthly contributions from members) and taking punitive actions against union leaders. But, SBI later had to take a U-turn and restored the facility following a court directive.
However, in the recent years, the unions have somewhat lost steam, especially in the public sector banks, with the newly joined young officers and employees showing no active interest in union activities, even though most of them religiously contribute to the monthly subscription fees. Banks in particular have made serious efforts to break the back of trade unions, but without success.
It is crucial that these employee unions reinvent themselves and keep themselves updated with the changing reality of the world.
Paralysing normal life with unrealistic demands such as one opposing the bank consolidation wouldn’t augur well for the trade unions because they face the becoming redundant and inviting the wrath of the public. For instance, disruption of banking services not only cause difficulties for the common man, but also results in massive business losses for banks.
"It is difficult to quantify the losses. But such strikes impacts the operations almost nationwide,” said a senior banking industry official to Firstpost, requesting anonymity.
Take one example. Merger of the state-run banks is inevitable since some of them, with irreparably cracked balance sheets, are on the death throes.

Disinvestment in state-run entities and privatising them eventually are key steps. The government cannot keep infusing tax payers’ money into sick PSUs such as Air India, to keep them afloat. That will be akin to pouring water into a leaking pot.
Also, for a country like India, which is still fighting poverty and struggling to ensure basic provisions to a large section of the population, it is highly necessary to bring in foreign capital to develop its infrastructure — roads, railways, ports and airports.
Under the current five-year plan, the country needs an investment of a trillion dollars for infrastructure development. The country’s fiscally constrained government, its weak banking sector and a shallow bond markets do not have the wherewithal to fund such massive requirement.
Foreign money is a necessity here not a luxury. Also, it is unwise and regressive on the part of the trade unions to oppose foreign direct investments in critical sectors since the growth of the sectors concerns to the welfare of these very employees.
ALSO SEE

Reforms are critical for India to ensure economic progress and this cannot happen with the trade unions fighting with the government on key policy issues and paralysing the nation to press their demand of a few lakhs of employees.
In a highly unionised public sector like India's, it is important for employee unions to set realistic agenda and work with the government constructively towards the overall economic growth, at least on critical policy issues.
If not, trade unions will run the risk of finding themselves redundant eventually.


Reinvent, update, be sensible: A survival guide for trade unions - Firstpost
 
.
Their is always communist resistance to more open economy be it globalization privatization disinvestment FDI anything they will cry the loudest. Their is no support for them by any major party at the centre whether they like it or not these reforms will continue.
 
.
Any estimates of how much losses this strike incurred to the economy?
 
.
Any politicians come out to openly support this?

The bandh was called and executed by the left parties and left trade unions, a few other parties supported it for political reasons, nothing new, what were you thinking, it's a revolution?
 
Last edited:
. .
The bandh was called and executed by the left parties and left trade unions, a few other parties supported it for political reasons, nothing new, what were you thinking, it's a revolution?
Strikes are not a revolution. But I was surprised at how people oppose reforms and then complain about lack of them in the same breadth.
 
. .

Latest posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom