36 Social Movement Unionism: The Case of India

Contents

1. Objective

2. Introduction

3. Learning Outcome

4. Social Movement Unionism: A New Approach

5. Social Movement Unionism in India

6. Conclusion

1. Objective

The major objective of this module is to introduce learners to the issues and challenges of Social Movement Unionism with particular reference to India. Drawing on several primary and secondary sources of data, this module primarily focuses on the way such activism provides an alternative to the traditional form of social movement.

2. Introduction

Since the advent of neoliberal economy in the latter half of the last century across the world, the issues of collective mobilisation cutting across class and community have witnessed qualitative changes. The major reason for this is rise of new sites of antagonism that are quite different from the old sites of production. In the post-Fordist phase of the global economy marked by international division of labour, flexible specialisation, informalisation, casualisation, sub-contracting and the like, it is neither possible for workers or peasants to stick to the old types of movements, nor is it possible to ignore the possibility of networks across classes to fight for issues like human rights, dignity of life, identity, low-wage, temporary and casual nature of jobs, rise of new types of inequality and consequent marginalization of large sections of population across societies. Protecting the common man from the vagaries of the market including corruption and job loss is a major agenda of many social mobilizations. It is in such a context Social Movement Unionism or Social Unionism has appeared as an alternative choice to trade unionists, social workers, and activists. Unlike narrow ‘business’ or ‘political’ unionism of the past, Social Movement Unionism is concerned with wide range of social, economic and political issues of workers, peasants and people at large and it tries to overcome the limits of class, region or industry to seek affiliation or support. There are also international efforts to link movements of several locations. For instance, the World Social Forum (WSF) has emerged as a response to the growing international movements to neo-liberal globalization and the effects of the neo-liberal economic policies prevalent in most of the countries. The Occupy Movement of 2011 has tried to create awareness on the issues of global inequality and strived to educate and encourage the people around the world to fight against the corporate greed (a detail discussion on this aspect is there in module No SM 11).

It is to be recognised in this context that globalisation today poses certain serious challenges to organised working class movement. At the same time, monitoring, regulating and governing the complex economy of private entrepreneurs in the greater interests of the stakeholders often appear an impossible task. The common argument of Economists about market as ‘self-regulating’ appears true only to certain extent. This is because business enterprises are able to manipulate new ways to bypass the laws required to protect the interests of shareholders and stakeholders. It is, therefore, not at all clear as to whose interests corporations promote. Human Resource Management (HRM) or Strategic Human Resource Management (SHRM)1, which emerged as a major alternative to Pluralist or Marxist notions of ‘industrial relations’ and ‘personnel management’ during the post-Fordist phase of industrial reconstruction, has failed to control mismanagement, corruption and social vulnerabilities (Ghosh 2016). Take, for instance, the case of Satyam Computer. Its founder, Mr. B. Ramalinga Raju, and eight other top company executives have used forged documents and falsified accounts to wrap up crores of money. The scam has been nicknamed as ‘India’s Enron’ for its similarities to the scandal at the US energy giant. This case and many others clearly reveal the failure of SHRM to prevent corruption by top company executives.

Such a realisation has again moved us to repose faith on civil society organisations including trade unions as pressure groups within and outside industry. The collectivistic and pluralistic approach of HRM philosophy, following the American model, appears basically theoretical in reality. In practice, it is individualistic and paternalistic. Even the neo-pluralist model of ‘soft HRM’ (Saini 2000: 21, Ghosh 2010) puts half-hearted emphasis on industrial pluralism as it argues for promotion of dignity, involvement and empowerment at the individual level only and bypasses the method of any collective representation. It should also be noted here that the SHRM strategies like ‘teamwork’ and ‘empowerment’ are rampantly used to downsize and delayer an organization. SHRM is therefore a managerial paradigm and hence it tries to subjugate industrial pluralism at new industrial or ‘Greenfield’ sites. It is also seen that this new paradigm attempts to make a puppet union (Paul and Mahurkar 2016: 69). Notwithstanding the negative role of trade unions in our old economy, there are some serious costs SHRM imposing ‘rules from top’. Consequences like uncertainties of employment, low wage, undignified life, loss of faith of the employees, unfair labour practices are some of these costs and they certainly do not match with our desirable goal of good governance in a civilised society.

There is, therefore, urgent need to argue for human rights at workplace including creation of ‘new fence of rules and regulations’ to protect the common man including the shareholders of industry from virulent shocks and tremors. Social Movement Unionism appears to be the best choice to do so as the traditional style of collective mobilisation has lost its relevance and strength now.

3. Learning Outcome

In this module, we would learn about the way Social Movement Unionism is becoming a popular choice in India, the factors that contributed to its strength and weaknesses. The discussion would also allow students to critically review the changing nature of struggle of marginalised people in India today.

4. Social Movement Unionism: A New Approach

The new model of ‘Social Movement Unionism’ or Social Unionism is an effective organising strategy for workers, employees and community groups (Waterman 1988, 1993; Robinson 1993; Moody 1997; Nissen 2003; Kumar and Schenk 2006; Tattersall 2006; Ross 2007). The concept was first applied in the late 1980s and early 1990s to unions in South Africa and the Philippines that allied with community groups to launch movement against the authoritarian states (Waterman 2004: 217). Kim Moody (1997: 4-5) has identified the following five variables of social movement unionism: (1) union governance: ‘deeply democratic’; (2) approach to collective bargaining: ‘militant’; (3) relationship to established political parties: ‘independent’; (4) strategy for political action: ‘reaching out to other sectors of the class, be they other unions, neighborhood organizations, or other social movements’; and (5) core ethical commitment: ‘fights for all the oppressed’. Obviously, these attributes allow the activists of such movement to launch widespread and unified movements against many types of exploitation. When a trade union becomes concerned with wide range of social, economic and political issues of workers/employees and people at large and seeks broader coalition for social and economic justice, its style of functioning goes beyond the narrow ‘business’ or ‘political’ unionism of the past.

The use of social and cultural capital for organising is, therefore, a new beginning in the history of movement of marginalised people including workers. It is difficult to apprehend the concept of Social Movement Unionism within the typical Marxist and Pluralist’s notion of trade unionism as it tries to develop a ‘social justice model’ that can embrace both conflict and cooperation at different levels of social activity. The new model has become a marked feature of our time as there is ‘proliferation of the sites of antagonism and resistance’ (Hall and Jacques 1989: 17). Kim Scipes (1992) has shown that in countries like Brazil, Philippines, South Africa and South Korea, unions could stress on new agenda like democracy, human rights and social justice to initiate dynamic and powerful movements of workers and other actors. Interestingly, such dimension of working class struggle was not apprehended by the Marxists themselves. One of the reasons for the popularity of Social Movement Unionism in the West is changes in the nature of work under post-Fordist regime. Trade unions find it difficult to organise workers as notions like ‘workers’ and ‘employment relations’ have become redundant in many sectors of industrial activity. Hence, a simple ‘capitalist versus worker resistance’ model appears to be very inadequate and simplistic in the contemporary context. In the earlier industrial relation structure, unions could hardly protect the rights of all sections of workers and particularly low-wage workers in the expanding informal sectors of our economy. Today, it is widely recognised that unless the unions break the artificial barriers between workplace and community, they can hardly defend themselves. They, therefore, are now forced to go beyond their limited ‘professional’ responsibilities and take up wider social responsibility as the fight is no more centred inside any factory or industry.

It is obvious that Social Movement Unionism calls for a new orientation on the part of our old unions. They will now have to change not only their ethos, organisational forms and stratagems, but would also have to look for greater goals and objectives encompassing wider socio-economic and environmental issues affecting the people at large. They will also have to develop network with other sections of civil society in order to fight for the human rights of workers in both the formal and informal sectors of our economy, for women and children, for the unemployed, poor and other marginalized sections of population. This means that unions would now fight for issues of even non-members. Resurgence of such unionism may prove to be crucial for short and long term survival of labour movement under adverse conditions.

It should be noted here that terms like Community Unionism, Open-Source Unionism, Social Justice Unionism or Social Movement Unionism are used interchangeably and often loosely to refer to the same process, although they carry different connotations. There is therefore significant ambiguity about different forms of Social Unionism. But, it is equally true that whether one organises people as members of a community like NGOs for socio-cultural development, or through social-movements in the struggles for democracy, human rights, and better environment, or does so by drawing the participants from different sources without any specific concern for industry or work, these experiences vary qualitatively from the traditional style of unionism. In this sense, different forms of Social Unionism, though subsumes different organising strategies, speak in one voice about the goal of changing the entire society.

Different versions of Social Unionism however differ from Social Partnership Unionism. This is because, as against the openness of Social Unionism, the basic objective of the latter is organising within the arena of production through consensus. It stands between the orthodox pluralism and corporatism (Ramaswamy 2000: 27-33). Social Partnership Unionism is practised in Germany and Sweden for over half a century. These unions, despite taking up wider socio-cultural issues of the workers, renounce their old adversarial role while cooperating with the management in introducing flexibility. The approach, adopted mostly under pressure to counter the capital’s strategy to shift investment to non-union areas, is rather a pragmatic response to union’s constraints in post-capitalist society. For instance, when the American automobile industry under a new competitive environment tried to move to Greenfield sites, the powerful United Automobile Workers (UAW) decided to promote social partnership. The condition that the union sought to reach such a compromise was that management would permit them to enter into new sites and that new innovations should not ignore rights already achieved by workers.

It is however argued that Social Partnership did not reduce the German and Scandinavian trade unions to an adjunct of capital (Ramaswamy 2000: 22) though the practice has given rise to ‘incalculable risks’ (Kumar 1995: 41) for unions. By contrast, Social Movement Unionism offers plenty of opportunity to unions, NGOs and other activists to raise a wide range of issues, put pressure on management including the state and build up coalition to defend the gains made earlier. The popularity of Social Movement Unionism in countries like Brazil, South Africa and Philippines is due to these factors. Canadian Labour Congress has also fought for non-work issues like fair wages, safe working conditions, universal health care, education, housing, equality rights, a sustainable environment, etc. In Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Iceland and Sweden, trade unions have come forward to help the unemployed workers who are not their members and thereby retain members who lost jobs. In Singapore, unions have emphasized skill up-gradation to help workers achieve lifetime employability. Unions in Britain today fight for the rights of migrant workers and some of them (for instance UNISON) have developed help lines for such workers. As migrants are trapped in low-skilled jobs due to poor grasp of English, unions have taken up the task to train them for upgrading their quality (Labour Research 2008: 7). These extended activity and social networking have allowed the trade unions to secure permanent membership under compulsive situation.

These experiences prove that trade unions are able to reinvent new stratagems to challenge their irrelevance. Just like capitalism is able to face challenges like declining rate of profit, over production, stiff competition, or recession, trade unions as a ‘social movement’ are equally capable of mutation, transformation and regeneration. Following Munch (2002: 190), we may propose here the counter thesis of ‘trade union renewal’ which goes against any simple evolutionary schema that proclaims the trade union dead or dying. Since neo-liberal globalisation, the idea of the ‘death of the working class’ has been popularised (Gorz 1982). The ‘end of work’ thesis based on certain limited experience of Western Europe has however failed to notice the proliferation of ‘proletarians’ who form the potential for any such movement. While a certain type of trade union and labour policies has certainly become weak or defunct, the workers’ movement has been at the forefront of many ‘new social movements’ for change. It is true that economic globalisation has brought in new challenges for the labour movements; but at the same time, such changes have also offered certain possibilities of global labour movement based on ‘new’ issues. As a result, trade unions throughout the world are now moving beyond the factory gates and breaking with a narrow, economistic conception of trade unionism. The more they do so, the greater they are able to strengthen Social Movement Unionism in each and every sphere of social life. When workers adopt this orientation, argues Munck (2002: 69), they often find allies among the ‘new’ social movements and, in particular, the NGOs.

While recognising the relevance and significance of Social Movement Unionism, we should keep in mind that such new strategies also put up certain hard challenges before our existing unions (Ross 2007). The new Unionism is a challenge because first, it calls for changes in the goal/ethos of union activity; second it necessitates changes in their strategic means, and third it requires changes in internal organisational practices and power relations. Let us take here one example. One of the ingredients for new unionism today is to develop and nurture leaders who are motivated, accountable, competent and knowledgeable. Because a leader should be competent like a manager to understand the implications of technological and organisational changes, collect information and disseminate them to their members regularly. To realise these goals, a union should first of all become democratic internally, then place greater importance on active membership participation and finally evolve an accepted structure/process that makes participation possible. They also need to rely on information technology to maintain networks even among segmented and diverse sections of their members in the industry/community. Social Movement Unionism therefore demands transparency, unity, moral commitments and coalition building on the part of union members, leaders and supporters. The success of this new model depends on correct realisation of these goals and strategies.

5. Social Movement Unionism in India

The decline of the influence of unions is not documented universally and the need for a greater role of the unions is now sought. From a moderate perspective, it can be argued that unions as powerful ‘voice institutions’ are rather relevant today when workers’ rights and welfare benefits are more threatened than in the past. It is worth noting here that the aggregate membership of all central unions In India has increased from 12.2 million in 1989 to 89.5 million in 2012. The verified membership strength of five of our major central trade unions (INTUC, BMS, AITUC, HMS and CITU) has gone up from 9.1 million in 1996 to 79.4 million in 2012 (Business Standard, 2013). Three new bodies namely, the Self-Employed Women’s Association (SEWA)2, the DMK affiliated Labour Progressive Front and the CPI (ML) supported All India Central Council of Trade Unions, have been added to the list of central unions as their membership has crossed the mandatory 5 lakh. Furthermore, the average membership per trade unions submitting return in India has increased from 747 in 2000 to 1919 in 2012 (Labour Bureau 2012). The enormous increase in the membership of five major central trade unions since economic liberalisation in India is explained by the rapid expansion of their base among the unorganised workers. It may be argued that the total membership is much more as a large number of independent/non-affiliated trade unions also exist in the country. This is an optimistic sign given poor performance of our unions in the public sector till now (for a detail discussion on role of trade union movement in India, read module no SM 29).

During the last few decades, there has also been the emergence of new ‘independent’ trade union federations like the New Trade Union Initiative (NTUI) that claims to represent 5 lakh members across India. It is trying to organise the unorganised workers by focusing on internal democracy, international solidarity and gender equality. Efforts like this highlight the need for ‘coalition building’ with social movement and civil society organisations in a country like India. Similarly, the National Centre For Labour (NCL), an independent union, was formed in May 1995 by nearly two-dozen labour unions having a membership of 6 lakh with an aim to organise informal sector workers (Mani 1995: 2486). Interestingly, several global union federation such as International Union of Food, Agriculture, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers’ Association (IUF) and IndustriAll Global Union have been active in industrial relations in India in recent times (Sundar 2015: 51). Again, the Asian Social Forum (ASF) is a common platform of several Left trade unions and a diverse range of NGOs to oppose neo-liberal globalisation.

It is true that such isolated and sporadic examples of joint struggle and alliances for common causes are yet to take a definite shape. But the problem of enormous exploitation of workers under the neoliberal regime as well as issues like unemployment, poverty, backwardness or social security of the unorganised workers have now become matters of public scrutiny due to new organising efforts in recent times. There are countless stories of struggle of informal sector workers in areas like construction, fishing, domestic work, or street vending. These struggles are often fought under joint platforms. For instance, the forest workers’ organization has formed coalition with other organizations involved with natural resources like agricultural workers, farmers and tribal organizations. Similarly, the All India Federation of Anganwadi Workers and Helpers has sought the help of All India Kisan Sabha, All India Agricultural Workers Union and All India Democratic Women’s Association to save the Integrated Child development Services (ICDS) (Sundar 2015: 51).

Likewise, new organizations of skilled employees like UNITES, Centre for Business Processing Outsourcing Professionals (CBPOP), or Information Technology Professionals Forum (ITPF) are formed in the last few years to represent the interests of ITES-BPO workers in India (Taylor et al. 2008: 39). Even though these bodies normally avoid any direct antagonism with employers, UNITES has successfully negotiated with many domestic firms and has established by now the genuine, if limited, presence of Indian ITES-BPO employees against industry’s assertion that the independent representation of employees is unnecessary. UNITES has judiciously highlighted instances that reveal the democratic deficit in Indian ITES-BPO sector (Ibid: 41).

It is therefore possible to document ‘new forms of resistance’ among the workers in the South. Immanuel Ness (2016) therefore believes that industrial working class has not disappeared, but rather has been reconstituted in the South and in larger in numbers than ever before. This new proletariat is forming bonds of solidarity in many industries in Africa and Asia. They are forming independent organizations, demanding improved conditions for all workers, pushing existing unions to represent members and non-members, and forming alliances within communities to improve the quality of life for all impoverished workers. Ness cites the example of a fierce fight back by informal and contractual workers at a Suzuki auto plant at Gurgaon industrial belt despite multi-national capital’s strategy of splitting the working class. The same scenario repeated when Suzuki opened a second plant. Hence, the company had to hire goons to instigate violence, leaving more than 100 injured. Surprisingly, due to the negative role of the state and its agencies, only the worker leaders jailed. In other words, organized resistance continues in India despite continued repression (EPW 2011).

These instances would lead one to argue that unions have begun to change their strategy and approach now. The need to organise the unorganised workers and incorporate the general socio-economic and political issues in trade unions’ agenda has initiated a new beginning in our history of working class movement. New models of unionism based on occupational identity, community identity, geo-political identity or open-source identities are on the rise. Thus, all other major unions (AITUC, BMS, INTUC, CITU, HMS, etc.) have resolved to devise separate charters of demands for the informal sector workers. CITU has devised a strategy of utilising the organisational strength of Krishak Sabha (agricultural workers’ union of the CPI (M)) in West Bengal to bring the scattered informal workers under its fold. They have also begun training unskilled workers and helping Self-Help Group members to market their products (Chakraborty 2006). All such efforts are now paying dividend in the form of increased membership of central and some independent trade unions.

The rise of Proto Unions or Community Unions also needs to be noticed. Rather than going for any direct confrontation with the employers, these unions are taking up developmental and welfare activities like health, housing, education, street light, water, sanitation, credit, etc. for the unorganised and self-employed workers. For instance, SEWA in Ahmedabad, Working Women’s Forum in Chennai, Karnataka Koligeri Nivase Sangathan, Civil Initiatives For Development in Bangalore, Pune City Domestic Workers’ Organisation, Kagad Kach Patra Kashtakari Panchayat (KKPKP) in Pune, Barjya Punarbyawaharikaran Shilpa Shramik Sangathan (BPSSS) in Kolkata etc., have begun effectively helping the informal sector and predominantly women workers. The target of such movements is often the local administration and MNCs for the poor living conditions of workers and their families

It is widely known that SEWA is a trade union of self-employed informal women workers engaged in a diverse range of activities. It aims to promote full employment for its members whereby workers obtain work security, income security, food security and social security. It also lobbies the government on several issues that are central to the working lives of informal workers. It has forged nationwide and international alliances of NGOs and trade unions of informal workers. As opposed from a normal trade union, SEWA offers specialist skills such as legal advocacy, financial and vocational training, organization and policy orientation to its members (Routh 2016).

In the same way, the Kagad Kach Patra Kashtakari Panchayat (KKPKP) is a trade union of waste-pickers in Pune, Maharashtra. The formation of the organization of waste-pickers was a result of networking and close collaboration between different organizations (including a university), responsible and committed individuals, and the waste-pickers themselves. The union tries to ensure that waste-pickers are recognized and respected as workers. Like SEWA, it tries to provide for socio-economic benefits to its members. On the other, it mobilizes its members for direct political action and lobbying. At yet another level, the union also uses the market efficiently by engaging in the waste-recycling business. The KKPKP has instituted credit cooperatives, group insurance, a cooperative store and self-help groups for its members. It also undertakes educational and literacy programmes. Along with protests against the government, it also participates in issue-based collaboration with the government. Because of its growing influence, the union is represented in a number of decision-making bodies in the Pune city now (Routh 2016).

One prominent example of Social Movement Unionism is the struggle of The Karnataka Rajya Raitha Sangha (KRRS) to fight for the rights of farmers. Nanjundaswamy of KRRS has been able to mobilise people of Europe by showing them how their MNCs are adopting dubious anti-people and anti-environment policies in the third world even as they project as ethical enterprises in their home countries and receiving much patronage from the people and the government. Similarly, National Fishworkers’ Forum has been formed in 1978 to protect the interest of small and traditional fishing community members facing threats from global capital with mechanised trawler. This organisation attempted to link the issue of marginalisation of a large number of fishermen in several parts of the country with impending ecological issues. The slogan that became popular was: ‘Protect Water, Protect Life’. Historically speaking, however, Shankar Guha Niyogi was the first to initiate Social Movement Unionism in the country through the establishment of Chattisgarh Mines Shramik Sangh (CMSS) in 1977. Unlike most of trade unions at that time, it did not limit itself to struggling for higher wages and got involved in social and cultural issues like anti-liquor campaign, good health campaign, literacy campaign, better environment campaign and the like. The union begun running a dispensary in a small garage and by 1983 it had built a 15 bed hospital with modern facilities. Later, it also built a school building and the union members did all these through voluntary efforts. Later Niyogi also formed Chattisgarh Mukti Morcha (CMM) to take up wider problems of the region as well as Chattisgarh Gramin Shramik Sangh (CGSS) to launch a movement against bonded labour. Social Unionism spearheaded by CMSS, CMM and CGSS not only led to the enforcement of labour legislation in the arena, the militant mass movements informed by alternative visions of developmental process of these unions could successfully mobilise many unorganised workers, adivasis and peasants for a better model of social living in the remote areas of Chattisgarh.

There is no doubt about the fact that instances of Social Movement Unionism in India to the tune of CMSS or CMM can be counted on fingers. Yet, a review of the responses of our unions to the challenges of economic liberalisation has provoked Ghosh (2008, 2016) to note that unions are slowly changing their style of functioning and are forging unity at wider level to either resist anti-labour policies of the government or to raise wider socio-economic issues. The formation of the National Campaign Committee of Trade Unions during 1990s showed the beginning. Thereafter, instances of even politically opposed unions joining a common platform have multiplied. They are also attempting to involve people in their fight for a justified living by incorporating general issues affecting the public at large. Thus, many general strikes were called in post-liberalised India on issues related to unemployment, poverty, privatisation, contract labour, child Labour, rights of women workers, social security of unorganised workers and the like. More surprisingly, unions have expressed their concern for non-work and managerial issues within organisations. Thus, the issue of professional management of PSUs became very sensitive in trade union circle when those units started losing in the competitive market after liberalisation. Similarly, the ‘workers’ management’ movement today is also largely an expression of their commitment to industrial survival. There are some celebrated experiences of workers’ cooperative (Kamani Tubes Ltd. in Mumbai, tea plantations, iron ore mines and jute industry) formed to oppose the policies of corporate capitalists and demonstrate the strategic role of trade union in industrial management.

Though instances of such new type of unionism in globalised India are encouraging, the stratagems of Social Movement Unionism are bound to put up new challenges before our old unions. Raman (2016) believes that the new forms and processes of egalitarian struggles in contemporary India have challenged both corporate state and the mainstream labour movement. For instance, the struggle of dalit women in plantation from the South has challenged capitalism and patriarchy as well. On the other hand, the Maruti workers have challenged the state and corporate capital for the right to form unions and challenge new form of slavery under neoliberalism. It appears that authoritarian and party based unions with patriarchal internal organisational structure will find it difficult to adjust with such new movements or develop partnership with various social movements and civil society. Hence, the journey appears to be very long and arduous for our old unions and it may as well begin with building democratic institutions in the internal and external processes of union activity.

Nevertheless, we should not write off the potential of our existing unions to strengthen the global fight against corporate capital. As Sheth (2004: 176) has argued, ‘trade unions are necessary and relevant as long as unfairness and injustice remain in employment relations. The logic of trade unionism has just got more widely open’. It is interesting to note the findings of Paul and Mahurkar (2016) in this context. They have found that in the Banking sector, trade union play a very positive role by ensuring corporate governance, long-term financial performance and service conditions despite internal fragmentation and high degree of political intervention. Unions help in employee retention, encourage effective communication, build morale and most importantly initiate meaningful discussions with the management.

In the contemporary context, trade unions have the important role to safeguard the interest of people at large and ensure that business enterprises keep to the spirit of the law including environmental wisdom. Today, trade unions can make use of the power of media and Internet to keep track on fraudulent business houses. Let us note that European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) has expressed its justified concern for the representation of trade unions and NGOs in drafting guidelines of Corporate Social Responsibility and other aspects of corporate governance. As it is often not possible for government and institutions like SEBI to keep watch on the powerful MNCs for severity of reasons, trade unions should be assigned this task in the greater interest of shareholders including the man on the street. If managing risk is a central part of corporate strategy, controlling corruptions, sweatshop scandals, mismanagement and promoting social accountability, better environment and human rights at workplace should equally become a cardinal duty of workers’ organisation and its social partners. Hence, looking into the long history of corporate hypocrisy and insincerity, national and international agencies should now seek union’s help in regulating and enforcing laws and developing collective activism for a better, civil and democratic society. As a corollary, we need to change our old perception and mindsets about trade unions and elicit their co-operation and involvement for better governmentality and civility. It is equally important for the old trade unions to rise up to the occasion to realise their full potentiality in a changed context.

6. Conclusion

Social Movement Unionism has acquired new significance in the new economy. Its rise across Europe, America, and Latin America in recent times is a pointer to the capacity of the labour to adjust to new challenges and launch alternative movements under adverse conditions. This strategy of organising, despite certain challenges and complexities, is capable of countering the ill effects of neo-liberal globalisation on workers and communities. Even in India one can witness certain perceptible changes in the strategy and approach of Indian trade unions to labour problems and problems of society at large. The need to expand the horizons of trade union struggle beyond the so-called ‘citadel’, and organise the informal sector workers as well as incorporate the general socio-economic and political issues in trade unions’ agenda have initiated a new beginning in our history of working class movement. There are also a few evidences of new forms of union engagement with civil society as well as explorations of alliances with independent organisations for initiating pro-people social movements. Hence, aspirations for democracy, social justice or human rights along with concerns for productivity, quality, and professionalism are gradually spreading into our industrial life. The strength of the Social Unionism model to sustain a long drawn fight is tremendous when flexibility, subcontracting, informalisation and casualisation have replaced the Fordist strategy of industrial development. But all these would also call for qualitative changes in the functioning of our old unions. It is in the interest of all concerned that such endeavours be allowed to gather momentum in India in years to come.

Notes:

1.    The concept of Strategic Human Resource Management (SHRM) is an offshoot of the concept of HRM in coordinating human resource policies and practices on the basis of the strategy of the firm. This transformation is based upon the recognition that in addition to the careful management of human assets internally, which is different from the earlier policy of ‘personnel management’, organizations should also design their specific needs and choices and coordinate them with HRM policies and actions (See, Schuler and Jackson 2007, for details).

2.    SEWA had begun as a trade union in 1972 and gradually became able to expand its activities to serve as a true representative of more than 2.2 lakh self-employed women in Ahmedabad. In the 2002-3 financial year SEWA Bank, formed in 1973 to help its members, had a working capital of 85 Crores and the micro-finance movement launched by it has been a major success. SEWA has also been able to provide much needed support services to its members & their families. In 2012, it had a total membership of 1.3 million.