An unnecessary strike

Trade unions fighting yesterday's battles

It was reported this weekend that the Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh or BMS, which claims to be the country's second largest trade union, has broken ranks with its four fellow unions and will not support the strike called for Wednesday. The BMS is part of the "Sangh Parivar", the loose confederation of Hindu nationalist organisations under the leadership of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh that includes the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party. It is reasonable to believe that such links would have played a part in BMS' decision to dissociate itself from Wednesday's strike. However, it is worth noting that the BMS has been allowed its head in the past by the RSS when it came to objecting to reformist decisions of a BJP-led government. So, if such headroom is absent in the current instance, it tells its own story about acceptance by the RSS of recent moves by the government. The BMS and other Sangh Parivar organisations were vocal in their opposition to certain moves in the first year of the new government, but on this occasion the Sangh's union argued that the government be given six more months to show its implementation of the unions' demands.

While the effect of the BMS' withdrawal on the effectiveness of the September 2 strike will not be known till the day, it is worth noting that - outside of transport, heavy industry and the public sector - the impact of the major trade unions is not great. Their footprint has continued to shrink in terms of the larger economy, particularly consumer-facing sectors except for banking. This is the fault of nobody so much as the unions themselves. In being the major force preventing the relaxation of outdated and overly stringent regulations, they have disallowed India's organised sector to grow to the size that it should be. In the process, they have progressively shrunk their own catchment pool. True, of late some of the unions have started recruiting aggressively from the unorganised sector. But this is too little, too late. Even in the organised sector, many jobs are now going to contract labour, who have substantially different interests from permanent employees. Notably, the regulations governing contract labour are one of the points of dispute. Here the unions have taken a maximalist stand. Rather than ensuring the most benefits for contract labour possible - the presence of a basic minimum wage, and of a safety net, such as the government has promised - the unions want contract labour to be prevented from being in jobs with "perennial" work. This would not just harm those who work on contract, but also hurt companies - and trade unions themselves.

Overall, the unions seem to be fighting yesterday's battles. It would be futile and dangerous to wish for a union-free India. Labour organisations serve an important purpose to the larger economy, and indeed to India's political organisation. However, India's unions need to work harder on updating their expectations and demands. Indians today recognise that the need is for more jobs, subject to a universal social net. Disruption in service for the narrow benefit of a limited set of workers in the organised sector will not just discredit the trade union movement but harm the larger interests of India's workers and its economy.