Trade unions’ movements against the Labor Code have failed in contrast to farmers’ protests.
NS repeal of three agricultural laws Expectations have set in motion, regarding a possible revival of other movements, such as those against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, and the repeal of controversial labor codes passed in 2019-20. Trade unions have intensified their agitation against the model code of conduct in the wake of the government’s decision to repeal agricultural laws.
Apart from the well-known political reasons, the important factors responsible for the victory of the peasants were those for which the agricultural laws were repealed. In industrial or social conflicts, staying in power, unshakable solidarity, political legitimacy, social visibility, and the ability to hurt opponents all matter in effecting favorable outcomes for agitators. All these conditions characterized the peasant movement. The protest gained political legitimacy as the government had passed three laws without consulting farmers’ groups and did not even refer the laws to the Parliamentary Standing Committee (PSC). We need to consider these aspects and assess the possible resurgence of industrial workers’ protest for the repeal of labor codes.
problems with code
The Central Trade Unions (CTUs) have criticized the Code on three main grounds. Labor codes were passed with little debate and discussion as opposition parties then boycotted the Lok Sabha. Trade unions, including the Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh (BMS), criticized the central government for not having adequate consultation with them on the codes, contrary to the government’s claims. The absence of effective dialogue contradicts the Tripartite Consultation (International Labor Standards) Convention (c.144) of the International Labor Organization Treaty, 1976, which India ratified in February 1978. There are several clauses in the labor code that deprive the workers of hard work. labor rights.
The Codes deserve repeal for other major reasons as well. The formatting is shoddy and incomplete. The codes are an insult to the collective legal and industrial relations intelligence in the country. The government introduced changes to key contentious clauses (hire and fire, contract workers) that were not based on strong empirical evidence; Thin good section (standing orders and inspections); Unnecessarily complicated matters (industrial tribunals, minimum wage) and made promises that were not backed by credible systems (Social Security Fund, Universal Minimum Wage and Social Security). Liberalization of limits relating to key legal aspects (contract labour, rent and fire, standing orders) and maintaining the existing limits even after several decades (provident fund, medical insurance) will accelerate the informalization of the workforce. The government has omitted several important and procedural clauses for the rule making procedures, resulting in considerable variations as states frame different rules on the same subject. These would introduce anarchy in the regime of industrial relations.
The failure of the trade union movement to meet its demands, as opposed to the success of the farmers’ protests, remains an enigma. In fact, an organized consultative framework exists because of the above mentioned ILO Convention. Trade unions have a long history and most of them have political affiliations. Although declining, trade unions still have a claimed membership of 90-100 million, which includes unorganized workers. The CTU claimed that 150 to 250 million workers took part in the recent nationwide strikes. If so, they should have shaken the government and removed the model code, which did not happen. So, what is the problem of the industrial working class?
why strikes fail
The CTU is divided because of his political affiliations. Of the 12 major CTUs, 10 are jointly agitating for repeal of all four codes, while the BMS is holding its own limited agitation: it is fine with the wage and social security codes but demands a “review” of the industrial Maintains relationship and occupational safety, health and working conditions codes. Again, thousands of enterprise-based unions lacking political consciousness do not always support the CTU’s movement. The claimed attacks resulted in symbolic acts of nominal consultation with the CTU by the United Progressive Alliance or National Democratic Alliance governments. The reform mandate was always alive.
Second, although CTUs have long been successful in blocking labor law reform at the national level, there have been substantial reforms in laws and oversight at the regional level. Furthermore, with the sly support of the government, employers have been able to achieve labor flexibility (large-scale contracting of the workforce) through formal laws. Therefore, labor codes matter less even if they are repealed.
Third, although there are about 400 million unorganized and informal workers, they are scattered and not organized in an integrated manner to create significant political opposition and demand labor market securities. More informality due to labor reforms would further damage the agitating power of unions.
Fourth, unlike farmers, industrial workers cannot organize long and large strikes because they will lose their jobs and wages. The presence of huge army of unemployed or unemployed and informal workers weakens their bargaining power. At the most, they can organize small protests. In short, their strikes neither hurt the economy nor the government. The failures of the 1974 railway strike and the 1982–83 Bombay textile workers’ strike disturbed the labor movement.
Fifth, a massive labor reform agenda consisting of privatization, flexible labor markets etc. is supported and even pushed by global financial institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Many countries are looking at labor reforms. The Sangh is basically fighting against the neoliberal system, for which they need intellectual connections.
Sixth, four codes were examined by PSC. It is another matter that the Codes did not reflect many of the recommendations of the PSC or did not include clauses mentioned in the draft Bills sent to the PSC. These procedural loopholes cannot be considered as stringent relating to agricultural laws. Finally, the ‘hurt’ government and powerful reform-lobbying interest groups will ensure there are no more rollbacks, including codes.
In view of these realities, unions must either come up with agitational strategies to damage the electoral image and prospects of the government and economy and/or exploit the possibility of legally challenging the codes as in the case of gig workers. has been done. The delay in the implementation of the codes due to unfavorable economic conditions or possibly due to political factors may be a short-term consolation, if any.
KR Shyam Sundar Professor, XLRI – Xavier School of Management, Jamshedpur
,