The INTUC, admittedly a pro-Congress TU centre, neither informed nor consulted any other partner of the joint campaign about its move to seek an appointment with the PM. It was bound to create a flutter within the CTUOs engaged in preparations for the satyagraha. It did create concern among them.

The Prime Minister, who had been keeping a discreet distance from the organised labour, agreed to invite the INTUC delegation and hear what they had to say. This was construed by some observers of the labour scenario as an effort on the part of the policy-makers to create a wedge and a rupture in the joint protest movement of the nine CTUOs; this was so because the INTUC was virtually heading the protest movement in cooperation with the Left and Right variety of CTUOs. Other major participant CTUOs are BMS, AITUC, HMS and CITU beside the smaller CTUOs like AICCTU, UTUC, AIUTUC and TUCC.

However, soon after the PM-INTUC meet, the INTUC clarified and satisfied the concerns of other CTUOs, saying that the INTUC firmly remained with the nationwide protest movement and would take part in the March 5, 2010 Satyagraha against the pro-corporate and anti-labour policies of the government. In this backdrop, the differing views on whether the INTUC sought an appointment with the PM or the latter invited the former with a purpose became irrelevant, at least for the time being.

But the “timing” of the PM's appointment to the INTUC was significant. It was fixed for January 22, 2010. That was the day when Union Labour Minister Mallikarjun Kharge had convened a conference of state labour ministers. And according to the PMO, the PM assured INTUC that the Government “gives the highest priority to inclusive growth and is committed to ensure that workers in the organised as well as the unorganised sectors are partners in the progress of the country.”

In a statement issued after the PM-INTUC meet, the PMO also said that the PM had directed the Labour Ministry “to constitute a group including representatives of the Ministers of Finance and Industry to examine the issues and give recommendations on how to address them. The INTUC had also raised issues concerning the impact of the economic crisis and slowdown on workers in the country.

A glance through the INTUC memorandum presented to the PM would show why it was anxious to meet the Prime Minister before the launching of the March 5 Satyagraha. At the conclusion of the long memo, INTUC mentions that the nine CTUOs have formed a coordination committee “to represent serious problems faced by the workers in the current economic scenario,” adding that INTUC has promised the CTUOs that it will “represent the same to the Government to pressurise the government, but the INTUC will not participate in any strike.” It urged the PM to examine the matter and “sort out a suitable solution on the issues.” It says the issues are: price rise should be controlled, labour laws should be implemented fully; stop disinvestment in profit-making PSEs; protection of workers from job losses due to economic crisis; and creation of Unorganised Sector Workers Social Security Fund. These are the campaign points of the nine CTUOs. It also mentions that “more than 50 per cent of the workers are engaged as contract workers with a very low salary of Rs 2, 000 p.m. without any other benefits.” It adds that though the abolition of contract system is not immediately possible “the contract workers may be paid the wages on par with the permanent workers for similar job.” It wants amendment of the Contract Labour Regulation (Abolition) Act accordingly, to protect their interest. The INTUC memo also talks about the formation of a National Social Security Authority of India, Amendment of the Bonus Act, the EPF-linked Pension, National Minimum Wage and so on.

The INTUC memo has put forward two demands which are conflicting with other. CTUOs. It says, for instance, that the Banking and Insurance industry managements have adopted a “step-motherly” attitude towards INTUC unions and its members were being victimised. The INTUC wants the Government “to instruct the managements” to avoid victimisation of its office-bearers, that “representatives of the INTUC may be appointed as Social Worker Director in the banking industry”, etc. Its second controversial demand relates to representation in Railways where a secret ballot was conducted in November 2007 for granting recognition to unions. Both AIRF and INTUC-affiliated NFIR earned recognition at the national level to the exclusion of other claimants but the NFIR was not grated recognition in seven of the Zonal Railways. INTUC has urged the Government ”to grant recognition to NFIR unions in the 7 Zonal Railways also.” Its argument is: such a decision would contribute and ensure industrial stability for the betterment of Indian Railways as well as the country. It is easier said than done!

In view of the democratically well-established unions by the secret ballot in both Banking-Insurance and Railways, the Government may find it difficult to rearrange unions' representations as desired by the INTUC. Anyway, the March 5 Satyagraha by the nine CTUOs will be revealing, for this is the first time in post-Independence history of the labour movement that all CTUOs will be in a joint action in the country. The Union Government too has never faced such united action of the labour movement on a nationwide scale. Both the dimensions of the CTUOs' action and the Central and State Governments' attitude would be watched with concern. Unity in action demonstrated so far is an achievement and would need to be preserved and carried forward and not frittered away.

As for the State Labour Ministers' conference called on January 22,2010, it was a significant development, the importance of which was lost on the CTUOs; or they did not care to take note of it. The official release by the Ministry on the conference reflected the Centre's approach on labour matters in the changed Liberalisation, Privatisation and Globalisation (LPG) scenario.

Some points, however, can be taken note of here too. For instance, Union Labour Minister Mallikarjun Kharge patted the Central Government for having enacted the “landmark” Unorganised Workers' Social Security Act 2008 (UWSSA) and now “called upon the State Governments to constitute State Social Security Boards and formulate rules” thereunder. So the fault lies with the State Governments of different shades. But why has the Centre taken more than a year to convene such a conference? Moreover, why no scheme has so far been framed under the UWSSA by the Centre?

Union Minister of State for Labour Harish Rawat, speaking at the conference, talked about “re-inventing our social security measures” in the context of global economic slowdown. Again, how and why this realisation after over a year of the slowdown playing havoc with the workers? Rawat, of course, has been associated with the INTUC He also said that “they (employers) talk about labour reforms but are shy in sharing social responsibilities.” Also, “the benefits of economic reforms must percolate to the workers who are the main strength of the reforms.”

It would appear that the nine CTUOs' protest movement is having some impact on the callous LPG-labour policy makers. It is some achievement that needs to be maintained. (IPA Service)