Letters: Plea for pay parity
Law enforcing authorities do not act against the companies
premium
With reference to the editorial, “Signals from Maruti” (March 22), apart from the need to reform labour laws in the wake of violence at the Maruti Suzuki factory and the resulting life sentence for 13 workers, there are other aspects of industrial relations practices, which the employer should take note of.
Setting up a puppet union to calm workers’ protests is a short-term strategy. Trying to win over the strong union by inducement is unwise; it may replace constructive protest with violence. Maruti tried to ignore and suppress the union led by Sonu Gujjar, with support from the official trade union, and then got rid of him by offering voluntary retirement at a reported price of Rs 40 lakh. This betrayal ultimately led to violence by workers.
Second, the employers’ plea that they are constrained to engage contract labour as protection against the provisions of the Industrial Disputes (ID) Act (which curtails freedom to retrench labour) is a lame excuse. The Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act permits engagement of contract labour for jobs of a seasonal nature. However, the companies employ them for regular work also and yet pay them peanuts. Law enforcing authorities do not act against the companies. In the Maruti case, one is not aware whether the management has been hauled up for increasing its contract labour persistently.
As long as this relationship between the management and the government continues, the demand for labour law reforms is like crying “wolf, wolf”. So, when the employers’ demand for amending the ID Act is conceded, the remuneration of contract labour on a par with permanent workers should be part of it.
Y G Chouksey Pune
Setting up a puppet union to calm workers’ protests is a short-term strategy. Trying to win over the strong union by inducement is unwise; it may replace constructive protest with violence. Maruti tried to ignore and suppress the union led by Sonu Gujjar, with support from the official trade union, and then got rid of him by offering voluntary retirement at a reported price of Rs 40 lakh. This betrayal ultimately led to violence by workers.
Second, the employers’ plea that they are constrained to engage contract labour as protection against the provisions of the Industrial Disputes (ID) Act (which curtails freedom to retrench labour) is a lame excuse. The Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act permits engagement of contract labour for jobs of a seasonal nature. However, the companies employ them for regular work also and yet pay them peanuts. Law enforcing authorities do not act against the companies. In the Maruti case, one is not aware whether the management has been hauled up for increasing its contract labour persistently.
As long as this relationship between the management and the government continues, the demand for labour law reforms is like crying “wolf, wolf”. So, when the employers’ demand for amending the ID Act is conceded, the remuneration of contract labour on a par with permanent workers should be part of it.
Y G Chouksey Pune
Letters can be mailed, faxed or e-mailed to: