T H E E C O N O M I C W E E K L Y August 3, 1957

Labour Unrest in the Public Sector S D Punekar

LABOUR In the public sector appears to be on the war-path.

Bombay municipal workers, who were appeased on the br ink of strike on 24th June, went on a lightening strike on 13th July. The threatened strike of Bombay dock workers was averted at the zero hour, after granting them certain concessions by the Central Communications Ministry. Labour unrest, however, appears to be a highly contagious disease and it has spread rapidly to other sectors of public economy. Strike decisions have been taken by the all-India employees' unions in Posts and Telegraphs, Civil Aviation, Income-tax, Audit and Accounts, Central P .W.D, Overseas Communi­cations and Central Tractor Orga­nisation. If these threats materialise, more than half a million of Central Government employees will be affec­ted. Discontent has already been shown among the railwaymen and bank and insurance employees. W i t h a l i t t le persuasion, they may join what may be called the conflagration in the public .sector.

Is it a mere coincidence that this acute labour unrest in the public sector has come to the surface at a time when the Plan faces a serious financial crisis? Both the Prime Minister and the Finance Minister have declared a financial emergency and appealed to the public to co­operate w i th the Government to secure maximum monetary resources to save the Plan and consequently the nation. The response of the Government employees to this appeal is to make more and more wage demands on the Government, whose finances are already at the lowest ebb. The employees' unions have asked for the appointment of a second Pay Commission, interim increase in dearness allowance and merger of dearness allowance wi th pay. These demands are thus large­ly monetary in character.

If the response of the workers in the short strikes of Bombay muni­cipal and dock workers is taken as a guide, there is no doubt that strikes, if and when declared, w i l l command a large majority of emp­loyees. Indian labour is notoriously fond of l i t igation and of strikes. Experience in the labour field shows that workers, who usually fa l l to

pay regularly their small union mem­bership dues, co, cribute liberally to a legal fund, raised for l ighting the bonus issue in a labour court. Simi­larly, it is not unusual in this coun­t ry for a union wi th low member-ship to declare a strike and take out workers from their jobs. It is not without significance that an un­recognised union proved to be the sole champion of the Bombay muni­cipal employees in the recent, strug­gle. Often the workers resort to strike in the absence of any call from the union oy sometimes in spite of the union's "no strike" directive and the union "adopts" the strike. Loyalty to the union is almost in­variably subservient to the urge to strike and hence even responsible unions and labour leaders find it convenient, to keep the embers smouldering. It is not, therefore a. matter of surprise that the Union Labour Minister who, at the last session of the Indian Labour Con­ference expressed such a horror of wage demands and advocated wage restraint, should also have been urging the Ahmedabad worker in his pre-election speeches to ask for a 25 per cent rise in wages. The In ­dian National Trade Union Congress passed a resolution to this effect. Why Unhappy Industrial Relations?

Labour troubles in the private sector have been attributed to the employer's desire to maximise his profits with minimum resources. It has been claimed that such troubles need not arise in the public sector, where profit motive is absent and there is no lack of resources. Actual experience in India, however, has shown that the public sector has suffered and is suffering from more labour disputes than the private sector. The reasons for such un­happy industrial relations are many.

First, it may not be correct to say that the public sector is not having the profit motive. The State, like Oliver Twist, always asks for more and hence resorts to all means to maximise its revenue.

Second industrial disputes in the public sector have increased, mainly because the sector itself has expand­ed during the last decade. The Bri t ish had followed a convenient laissez faire policy, wi th the result that when the Indians took over in

1947, the public sector in the indus­t r i a l sphere consisted solely of posts and telegraphs, railways, and the ordnance factories. The expansion rate of the public sector since 1947 has been amazing. V i t a l industries like life insurance, civil aviation, shipbuilding and telephones have been nationalised. Government ownership has extended to numerous fields like fertilizers, antibiotics, machine tools, iron and steel, loco­motives, integral coaches, newsprint, cables and cement. The multipur­pose projects, national laboratories and atomic establishments are fresh fields covered by the public sector. The administrative staff has multi­plied itself to cope with the expand­ing activities of the State, the big­gest employer in India. However, expansion of activities has not kept pace wi th the increasing realisation of the value of industrial relations wi th the result that labour unrest in the public sector has increased during the course of the decade.

Exemption from Labour Laws

Third, there has been an increas­ing tendency on the part of Govern­ment factories to get themselves exempted from the operation of labour laws on flimsy pretexts. For

example, many Government estab­lishments have been exempted from the employees' State Insurance Scheme, which is a social security measure. There is often an invi­dious distinction between the emp­loyees of the private sector and those of the public sector, as far as social welfare measures and monetary advantage like bonus are concerned.

Fourth, public sector brings with it impersonal administration, which results in red-tapism, routine delays, lack of proper response and general inefficiency. Most of the evils of the modern industrial system can be attributed to the loss of personal and cordial relations between the manager and the managed.

Fifth, the contribution of the ma­nagerial staff in the public sector to labour unrest is not insignificant. Many of the supervisory staff are no doubt good administrators; they are, however, ignorant either of technical know-how or of personnel administration. The bureaucratic attitude to labour problems has re­sulted In considerable harm. The

1015

T H E E C O N O M I C W E E K L Y August 3, 1957

way in which the dispute of Bombay municipal staff and the dock workers was allowed to develop shows the Incompetency of the management in dealing wi th human relations.

Sixth, political motives play some part in labour unrest. Most of our trade unions are managed by out­siders for political purposes and strikes are often conducted in order to gain political influence. The Bombay municipal trouble was engi­neered by leaders of a political party, which could not win a single seat either in the Assembly or the Corporation.

Lastly, employees in the public sector have often high hopes about the popular government and when these expectations are not fu l ­filled, there Is some discontent.

The Role of the State The public sector Is thus under

certain definite disadvantages from which the private sector is free. If labour unrest is to be avoided, then these disadvantages will have to be eliminated. The employees have some genuine economic, social and psychological grievances. The main grievance is the inadequacy of re­muneration. It is high time that the whole wage structure in the pub­lic sector is rationalised, taking into consideration such factors as work­load, price-level, amenities provided, scales of increment and chances of promotion. Since 1947, nepotism and favouritism have influenced selection and promotion in Government ser­vice. In a recent article in this paper, a man of position in the Government wan compared to a ban­yan tree giving shelter to family, friends and kinsmen. It is a val id comparison. Naturally merit and honest work are at a disadvantage.

I t is necessary for the high offi­cials to discard their class-conscious­ness, which makes them treat their subordinates as so many menials for all practical purposes. Unfortu­nately, the Central Government is too much class-ridden. Even a cur­sory glance shows that the Govern­ment housing colonies in Delhi and even the cloak-rooms and the can­teens in the Central Secretariat are divided on class-basis\ It is difficult for a Class I officer to treat on equal footing his subordinate in Class I I . Each man is valued according to his official status. The 'Babus' at the lowest rung, numerically strong but organisationally weak, are treat­ed not much differently from the chaprasis. Their chances of pro­

motion depend upon their personal relations wi th their superiors, who often engage them in their house­hold work. The gap between the highest and the lowest, both in money and social status, is very wide and the whole Secretariat is polarised between the two classes officers (Under Secretary and above) and clerks.

The same bureaucratic attitude prevails in the industrial undertak­ings in the public sector. Here, how­ever, labour is organised and though white-collared workers usually care more for security of service and are reluctant to take the risks of strikes, unionism is spreading to ministerial services also. The clerks and the assistants now and then threaten to lay their pens down unless their demands are met.

Role of Trade Unions The traditional role of trade

unions in the private sector has been to put for th on behalf of their mem­bers demands for higher and higher wages and allowances, for more amenities, for less hours of work and for more rest intervals. The de­mands are all on consumption side and the unions' interest is in getting the maximum share of the cake, without worrying in any way about the ways and means of enlarging the cake. Employees are just not interested in higher productivity. On the contrary, they do not mind ob­structing the implementation of measures for higher production like rationalisation, production commit­tees, work measurement studies, vocational training schemes, produc­tion planning and control and such other measures for simplification, standardisation and specialisation of jobs. The growth of trade union movement as a challenge to meeJL the unfair practices of employers has resulted in the growth of two dis­tinct classes wi th sharply conflicting interests, concentrating either on maximum profits or on more and more wages.

The role of trade unions in the public sector should be somewhat different, because here the relations are not between two opposite, irre­concilable parties, but between the employees and their Government. As citizens, the workers have got a direct stake in the public sector and hence it is in their interest to see that this sector is free from any obstacles in its efficient working. The interests of the nation, which is reflected in the public sector, should

have priori ty over individual Inter­ests. This means that the t radi­tional concept of labour being an adversary to management is to be given up, that class-conflict is to be replaced by class-collaboration, and that the employees should aim at more and better production. Instead of wasting their efforts purely in getting a larger share in the cake, the employees should t r y to enlarge Its size so that in the near future they w i l l get more.

Trade union leadership In the pub­lic sector has to play the important but difficult persuasive role in con­vincing the employees tha t they have a responsibility towards the national economic system and that It is in their interest that this system should be prosperous.

1017

August 3, 1957 T H E E C O N O M I C W E E K L Y

1018