Unions: Privilege before duty?

Synopsis: Trade unions fighting for rights doesn’t mean depriving the public of theirs.


India is a founding member of the international labour organization (ILO), which holds that labour peace is essential for prosperity and progress of any nation.

The Act

The aim since 1919, is to prevent exploitation by ‘free enterprise’ and for:

• rights at work for men and women
• decent employment opportunities
• social justice, labour rights and human rights
• tripartitism between workers, employers and government

These ideals inspired the Trade Union Act in India as early as1926. But faced with the realities of colonial rule, development of social and political movements, and consequences of independence, trade unions in India have been slow to develop.

Unionism

In a labour force of about 430 million, just 8 percent is organized. The rural sector comprises 60 percent, while the urban informal sector (software and other services) is 32 percent. Still, union formations flourish, since it takes only seven members to do so. A survey in 2002 reported a total of 37,903 registered unions in the country!

A trade union is meant to be a voluntary organization formed to apply collective action to protect rights, interests and welfare within industrial concerns.

It organizes workers, white-collar employees, supervisors and managers at each level of the organization. Usually regulating relations between workmen and employers/management, its purview includes workmen-workmen, employers-employers issues, as well as the conduct of any trade or business.

Civil and political

In the early years, the 1920s, leadership came from prominent figures of national independence movement. For example, Mahatma Gandhi guided the forming of spinners’ and weavers’ unions, and turned their strike into satygraha (social non-cooperation movement) against colonial rule.

Post-independence, the working class movement became politicized. Central trade unions each became the labour arm for a particular political party - and the tradition continues. Unions today are yet to outgrow this dependence on central or state parties to politically enlarge organizational issues, and to evolve in their own right.

Presently they’re constrained to toe party lines, sometimes at the cost of the employees and the trade or business organization. In the ’60s and ’70s, crippling industrial strikes at political behest even led to closures in jute and other manufacturing industries.

The social context

The point is trade unions exist not only to cater to the demands of workers, union leaders or their political bosses. The Trade Union (Amendment) Act 2001 specifies another crucial aspect of their role - the social context. The recent strikes seemed to neglect responsibility, discipline and commitment for the organization and society at large. In a democracy, fighting for rights doesn’t mean depriving the general public of theirs. Duty comes before privilege, especially in India’s massive diversity.

Truckers’ and petroleum officers’ unions claim legitimate grievances. But, preoccupied with individual context, they lost touch with the social needs of the nation. Strikes should be last not first, in democratic options. Trade unions need to adapt to the changing reality, separating civil from political. And, in place of strategies jeopardizing social justice, evolve mature forms of collective action, such as effective tripartite negotiations and dialogue.

Comments/opinions, anyone??

References for "Unions" blogposts:

1. About the ILO
2. India truckers strike over fuel
3. India's truckers feel economic chill
4. Managing human resource: Trade unions
5. States told to handle truckers strike like Oil Officers’ stir
6. Trade Unionism in India