30 Working Class Movements in India

Contents

1. Objective

2. Introduction

3. Learning Outcome

4. Rise of Political Unionism in India

5. New Challenges before Trade Unions Today

6. Responses of our Union’s to New Challenges

6.1 Defensive Strategy

6.2 Acceptance of Labour Flexibility Measures

6.3 Concern for Competitive Efficiency and Productivity of the Plant

6.4 Stress on Decentralised Bargaining & Company Unionism

6.5 Shift from Leader Centred to Activist Controlled Unions

6.6 Forging Working Class Unity at the Wider Level

6.7 Stress on Issues affecting the People in general

6.8 Attempts to Organise the Unorganised Workers

7. Conclusion

1. Objective

The objective of this module is to introduce learners to the issues and challenges of working class movements in India. As several factors have dictated the contours of this movement, this module will allow you to introspect into diverse structural processes and discursive conditions that have been responsible for changes in the nature of working class struggle in India today.

2. Introduction

Industrialization and development of capitalism in India was a slow process. Until the middle of the nineteenth century coal mining was the only industry in the modern sense. The course of Indian industrialisation was controlled to suit the interests of the British. Naturally, the growth and development of industrial working class and its organisations that closely followed industrialisation and factory employment was a belated process. Till the beginning of 19th century, industrialisation was mainly confined to cotton industries in Bombay and jute industries in Calcutta. Establishment of railways also provided some scope for working class activity in the early days of industrialisation. There were however workers employed in large numbers in tea plantations who sporadically protested against exploitation and oppression by their owners and managers. But these workers were categorised under non-industrial activities and thereby their protest activity did not draw the attention of scholars.

The earlier record of worker protest was in 1862 when about 1200 railway workers went on strike in Howrah station (Shah 1990: 185). In 1877 and 1882, textile workers in Nagpur and Bombay went on strike for longer period for better wages. Though detail records of these protest activities are not available, the Bombay strike is argued to be the beginning of labour movement in India (Karnik 1966). From time to time, after that, sporadic and short-lived stoppages of work were reported from factories and textile mills in Bombay, Calcutta and Madras. By 1890s, strikes became a frequent activity for industrial workers in India involving more and more workers. On issues related to price rise, declining real wages, bonus, shortage of food stuff during the First World War, workers of cotton textile mills in Bombay called general strike in 1991 and 1920. The situation was similar in other centres of industrial activity. This means that even before the formation of any trade union, there have been various forms of labour protest activities against low wages, long working hours, poor condition of works, and the like in the cotton and jute industries, in the railways, mines, ports and docks, mint and presses, plantations and other non-factory concerns. After the First World War, the two major external factors that also influenced our working class movement were Russian revolution and Gandhi’s call for non-cooperation movement.

The first organisation to be formed on the lines of a modern trade union was the Madras Labour Union, founded in 1918 (Ramaswamy and Ramaswamy 1981: 86-7). The Textile Labour Association in Ahmedabad was founded in 1920 under the guidance of Mahatma Gandhi. The most important incident in the history of Indian labour movement was, however, the formation of the All India Trade Union Congress (AITUC) in 1920 as a national body to coordinate trade union movement throughout the country. The AITUC received lot of support from the Indian National Congress. By that time several unions were formed in Bombay, Calcutta and Madras. According to a rough estimate, there were 125 unions in India by 1920 consisting of 2,50,000 members even though many of those were temporary members. Interestingly, the leaders of the trade union movement were also the leaders of the nationalist movement. The trade union movement became a part of the wider struggle and gained its strength and vitality from the latter. The trade union movement in India has, therefore, assumed a political character from the very beginning. In spite of workers’ concern for immediate economic gains, mainly wages, trade union struggles in India were influenced by anti-colonial and anti-imperialist politics which broke from time to time under the barricade of economic demands and made the workers utilise their strike weapon to protest against colonial and imperialist repression. Yet, the history of working class movement is marked by split, inter-union rivalry, state intervention in different forms and concentration of struggle in the organised sector of our economy (Ghosh 2009). The failures of our trade unions to cope with challenges of liberalisation much later cropped up partially from these failures. This story therefore speaks both about the success and failures of our old trade unions to foresee larger interest and act judiciously. In recent times, however, unions have started reacting pragmatically and a new beginning of Social Unionism has raised new hopes for working class struggle in India.

3. Learning Outcome

In this module, we would learn about the way working class movement has grown in India, the factors that contributed to its strength and weaknesses. The discussion would also allow students to critically review the impact of liberalisation on the changing nature of working class struggle in India today.

4. Rise of Political Unionism in India

Ideological discussions about the role of trade unions in India started after the formation of AITUC. There were three distinct ideological groups in the trade unions federation: Communists led by M.N. Ray and Dange, nationalists led by Gandhi and Nehru and moderates led by N.M. Joshi and V.V. Giri. Serious differences prevailed among these three groups on important questions such as the nature of relationship between trade unions and the broader political movement, the attitude to be adopted towards British rule and affiliation to international bodies. As a result of these differences, AITUC suffered a split first in 1929 and then in 1931. By 1931, there were two more national federations of trade unions apart from AITUC. These were namely, Indian Federation of Trade Union (IFTU) formed by moderates and reformists and Red Trade Union Congress (RTUC) formed by the Communists. Later in 1935, AITUC and RTUC came together and need for workers’ unity was again felt among all our trade unionists in the context of intensified nationalist and anti-imperialist struggles. In 1940, such unity could be forged when NFTU merged with AITUC.

Ideological and strategic debates among our trade union leaders continued even after Independence and ultimately these led to the formation of several trade union centres. In May 1947, nationalists and moderates formed Indian National Trade Union Congress (INTUC), since by then the Communists had acquired control over AITUC. The Congress socialists who stayed in AITUC at the time of the formation of INTUC subsequently formed Hind Mazdoor Sabha (HMS). A few years later the HMS was split up with a faction of socialists forming Bharatiya Mazdoor Sabha (BMS), and again when there was split among the Communists, the United Trade Union Congress (UTUC) and Centre of Indian Trade Unions (CITU) were formed. Later a splinter group of UTUC formed another federation, i.e. UTUC, Lenin Sarani. With the birth of regional parties since the 1960’s almost each regional party now has a trade union wing. Today, trade unions’ association with political parties is almost an all India feature. Even parties with sectarian or nativistic feeling started organising workers. It is argued that the ‘politics of nativism’ has helped Shiva Sena to acquire a considerable presence in the trade union scene in Bombay (Gupta 1978). Short-term objectives and electoral considerations also became the tenets of trade union politics. The origin and growth of trade unionism in India is riddled with fragmented politicisation that has also led to the perpetuation of inter and intra-union rivalries (Ghosh 1988). It is therefore argued that political unionism leads to party dominance over unions, encourages outside leadership and stands in the way of working class unity. On the contrary, non-political unionism has been held out as the only solution to the problem of trade unions (Giri 1958). There are, however, claims opposed to it. From a study of the Textile Workers’ Union of Coimbatore, Ramaswamy (1982:228)  shows that politicisation provides the ‘union with a nucleus of committed members who are actually involved in union affairs and assume leadership. Without such committed members, trade unions can never become organisation of workers’. The reality is that most workers in India do not feel committed enough to the union to aspire for an office. The politically committed workers are more willing to shoulder responsibility because of their double identification with the Union. Ramaswamy has found that although the unions have been started and politicised by partisan leaders, they (unions) have developed a logic and momentum of their own. A study conducted by Vaid (1965) also shows that, in general, political and socio-psychological considerations provide the greatest motivation for joining the union.

In spite of the increasing involvement of political parties in the trade union movement in India, a reputed Marxist trade union leader has argued that trade union ‘consciousness reflected here does not show much advance beyond economic demands’ (Ranadive 1984: 41). Economism is a dominant trend in the Indian trade union movement. Shah (1990: 194) has however argued that economism of trade unions and the working class is often over emphasised. Ramaswamy (1981) and Vaid (1972) have also shown that political issues figure prominently in working class strikes in post-Independence India. Workers have resorted to strikes or other actions when their economic condition deteriorated. Yet, our trade unions on an average hardly saw beyond a factory or industry. Their weakness regarding the defence of the peasantry and agricultural workers or other oppressed section of the masses is equally well known. It is, therefore, acknowledged that what is being done relating to the nature of the trade union struggle in India is just the beginning. Hence, it is difficult to assess the extent, to which ideologies or various ‘left’ or ‘right’ unions have accounted for the growth of trade union movement in the country. The ‘Datta Samant Phenomenon’ in Bombay is an interesting example of what can be termed as an ‘end of ideology’ where a left union (AITUC) has lost its stronghold among the textile workers following the shift in affiliation of these workers to the charismatic leader, Datta Samant (Pendse 1981). There also examples of trade union leaders appealing to caste and kinship sentiments for mobilising opinions among workers (Ramaswamy 1976, Ghosh 1988). While V.V. Giri (1958) and H. Crouch (1966) argue that trade unions have not made themselves free from the parochial loyalties, N.R. Sheth (1968) has found that bulk of the workers refrain from union activity mainly because of their primordial ties with the employees.

A major shift in the Indian trade union movement has occurred through the adoption of the principles of ‘industrial harmony’ and ‘responsible unionism’ by some major trade union centres like the Indian National Trade Union Congress (INTUC) after independence (Ghosh 2008). In the aftermath of Independence, INTUC leaders had argued for unhampered industrial production and rapid economic development and these responsibilities were assigned on the workers. It was later found that such principle has in reality weakened the basic foundation of trade unions in some places, as they have become poor representatives of industrial workers and ineffective articulation of their interests. Even in case of Gandhian Textile Labour Association in Ahmedabad, Sujata Patel (1984: 862) has found that the capital was able to set limits on the nature of worker’s movement. Also in case of TISCO, the workers considered the only recognised union affiliated to the INTUC as management’s dalal and mere ‘rubber stamp’ (Mamkoottam 1982). It is quite natural for a management to extend all possible help and patronage to a union, which in turn is prepared to provide a peaceful industrial work force.

Another consequence of too much of involvement of political parties in trade union activities is the rise of independent unions since mid-1970s. These a-political unions are led by leaders like Datta Samant, A.K. Roy, Shankar Guha Neogi, Ela Bhat among others. The unions led by them are less hierarchical and bureaucratic, stressed on day-to-day issues of the workers and did not believe in radical changes. Datta Samant, for instance, mobilised a sizeable sections of textile workers in Bombay through his Maharashtra Birni Kamgar Union by stressing too much on immediate economic issues. Worker’s apathy for politically affiliated unions became evident in many part of India.

These independent unions however could not create any large scale impact on the strength of trade union movement. What is most important for us to note is that the industrial workers in India have largely remained unorganised despite some efforts here and there. It should be noted that even the growth of trade unionism in India’s formal sector has occurred unevenly. In certain states and some industries, they are strong, while in others they are just on papers. In spite of a long history, therefore, unions in India are weak. More importantly, the growth of membership in unions has been far from adequate, as compared to the disproportionate growth in the number of unions. The mushroom growth of unions has reduced the average strength of membership per union and has eroded their financial viability. As seen from Table 1.1, the number of registered trade unions in the country has gone up from 29,391 in 1975 to 84,642 in 2008 (data after that are incomplete). But the number of unions submitting returns has surprisingly declined in percentage terms during these years. Hence, we know very little about their total membership strength.

Table1: Growth of Trade Unions & their Membership in India, 1975-2008*

Year.	No. of Registered	No. of unions	Membership of Unions	Average
	Trade Unions	Submitting Returns	Submitting Returns	Membership per
		(%)	(’000)	Union
1975	29,391	9,690 (32.96)	6,267	647
1980	35,939	4,399 (12.24)	3,716	845
1985	45,067	7,851 (17.42)	6,433	823
1990	52,016	8,828 (16.97)	7,019	795
1995	57,952	8,162 (14.1)	6,538	801
1996	58,988	7,242 (12.3)	5,601	773
1997	60,660	8,872 (14.6)	7,409	835
1998	61,992	7,403 (12.0)	7,249	979
1999	64,817	8,152 (12.6)	6,407	786
2000	66,056	7,253 (11.0)	5,421	747
2001	66,624	6,531 (9.8)	5,874	900
2002	68,544	7,812 (11.4)	6,973	893
2003	74,649	7,258 (9.7)	6,277	865
2004	74,403	5,252 (7.1)	3,397	647
2005	78,465	8,317 (10.6)	8,719	1,048
2006	88,440	8,471 (9.6)	8,960	1,058
2007	95,783	7,408 (7.7)	7,877	1,063
2008	84,642	9,709 (11.5)	9,574	986

* Available Data after 2008 is incomplete. Hence, I have ignored them.

Source: Government of India, Ministry of Labour, Pocket Book of Labour Statistics, 1987, 2012

It should also be acknowledged that despite the neo-liberal axiom that ‘unions are dying’, the aggregate membership of all central unions has increased from 12.2 million in 1989 to 24.5 million in 2002 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), 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. Not only this, the average membership per trade unions submitting return in India has increased from 747 in 2000 to 938 in 2002 and to 1919 in 2012 (GoI 2012).

While analysing the role of trade unions in India, we should note that wherever trade unions are operative, they have been able to make some gains after Independence. Trade union activity created an atmosphere for passing of important legislations. They have been able to increase wage rates and acquire some other statutory facilities for at least a section of the labour force. All that can be said about trade unions in our country is that if they had not existed, even workers in the large and registered factories would have lost much. But considering the gains made by trade unions for a small section of labour force in India, it is argued that they have created an ‘aristocracy of labour’ (Holmstrom 1976). Trade unions, by confining themselves mainly among the ‘factory sector’ workers, have contributed to the perpetuation of cleavages among the workers.

Though this thesis is true to certain extent, it is possible to look at the issue from another angle. Thus, there are differences in the socio-economic aspects of the labour force in the formal and informal sectors. Yet, the terms and conditions of employment vary not only between various industries or within an industry, but also within the units in the so-called formal and informal sectors. It is misleading therefore to characterise the whole factory sector as a ‘citadel’ and their workers as the ‘privileged class’. All that can be said about trade unions in our country is that if they had not existed, even workers in the large and registered factories would have lost much. Ideally, a permanent job is secure; but in reality, factories close down or lay off workers in bad times. Even legal rights, especially job security, are effective only where there is a strong union. Indian entrepreneurs, far from being ‘nationalists’, have mostly remained ‘unprofessional’ and ‘paternalistic’ in handling labour issues. As a corollary, even schemes like Workers’ Participation in Management or institutions like collective bargaining could not make any significant headway in pre-reform Indian society.

5. New Challenges before Trade Unions Today

Market liberalism has posed some serious challenges before our old unions for the first time in its history. The introduction of the LPG (liberalisation, privatisation and globalisation) model in India since the middle of 1980s has opened a veritable Pandora’s Box with far reaching implications for labour, their unions and management as well (Ghosh 2008). In the pre-liberalised Indian society, the state maintained a complex set of labour regulations that aimed at strengthening trade unions, improving wage outcomes and increasing job security in the formal economy. Governmental intervention to strengthen the position of workers vis-à-vis employers has led to the passing of nearly 200 labour laws by both the central and state governments. Apparently, these labour regulations have contributed to the strength of Indian trade unions by making job security, wage rate and other benefits ‘statutory compulsions’ for the employers of factories. But, it may as well be argued that, these laws have also made our unions and workers dependent on the Government machinery for settling any issue. The pre-reform industrial relations in India are, therefore, typically marked by third party intervention that stood in the way of a rapid growth of genuine collective bargaining. In fact, it has been argued that state regulations have perpetuated, if not also actively contributed, to a weak and divided labour movement that remained dependent on external props (Ramaswamy and Ramaswamy 1981: 201). Problems like fragmentation and intra-union rivalry, narrow sectarianism and lack of ideological base, short-term objectives, economism and electoral considerations for trade union struggle, corrupt leadership with managerial support, etc., broadly characterize trade unionism in post-independent India. The existence of a vast pool of unorganised labour has made our unions inherently weak.

It is in such a context liberalisation has fostered, among others, new forms of industrial organization including enormous growth of information technology and informal work relations, spatial reorganizations, flexible specialisation, subcontracting, feminisation, changes in the skill levels of working ‘classes’, etc. All these have initiated qualitative changes in our industrial life today (Jose 2000: 32). Since the introduction of the New Industrial Policy in 1991, which virtually freed the domestic investors from all licensing requirements, Government expedited the process of reducing public sector investments, closing down loss making PSUs and even selling the share of high profile PSUs. Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) and the Exit Policy were being indiscriminately adopted to retrench the organised workforce and to close down most of the sick industrial units in both public and private sectors. Government is also trying to amend the Industrial Relations Act to break down the strength of organised labour further.

It should also be noted here that some state governments like Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Karnataka have proposed to introduce ‘flexible labour policy’ applicable to the units working under Special Economic Zones. Such flexibility removes working hour’s compulsion and many other legal stipulations related to employment and management. It is due to such open or tacit state support and political encouragement for the capital and the expanding culture of ‘free market’ that trade unions now face writings on the wall. There were several instances of political, administrative, legal and police support or protections being provided to prospective investors, the Haryana Honda Motors case being the brightest one. There have also been certain attempts by the employers to shift the location of the industry from highly unionised regions, such as Kerala and West Bengal, to less militant regions or to free-trade zones (Mamkoottam, 2003: 71-2). Hence, even the Left parties and their governments could not take the risk of providing blanket support to trade unionism that could have antagonised the prospective investors or hamper productivity of a firm. Opposition to traditional style of militant unionism is almost common in today’s life and the greater society has little sympathy for any kind of militant unionism. Market reform has, therefore, changed the concept of work. Today, capital-intensive work organizations look lean and thin stressing on competitiveness, multiple skill and higher productivity. Our old trade unions do not fit into this structure.

Disinvestments or privatisation of the public sector industries, and mass scale casualisation of labour force have further aggravated trade unions’ agony (Ghosh 2009). While casualisation is causing increased employment opportunities for some, it also means loss of jobs for others. On the whole casualisation displaces the better-paid, more protected workers and increases insecure and low-paid employment (Pais 2002, Jhabvala and Sinha 2002). Today, the process of casualisation has also intensified another labour process called ‘feminisation’ of workforce in several industries. Although technical changes have eliminated many jobs traditionally performed by women, there has also been mass scale replacement of permanent male workers by casual female workers in some industries. In the Public and Private sector organised industries as a whole, the number of women workers has increased rapidly. This ‘gendering’ of jobs helps the employers to pay less and get rid of powerful protesters as well. Women workers hardly join any union activity and their image of ‘supplementary wage earner’ helps in perpetuating the myth that they are easily ‘dispensable’ (Ghosh 2001).

Obstacles to successful trade union mobilisation also emerge from the fact that casual and temporary workers in the informal sectors generally remain less enthusiastic about union activity. With little or no job security, they also cannot always take the risk of engaging their masters. The growing size of the informal employment, therefore, is a major challenge before the existing unions. The entry of subcontractors or third party in between the workers and employers makes such endeavour even further difficult.

Apart from informalisation, modern electronic (henceforth ME) technologies also have caused fragmentation of the labour processes and consequent segmentation of the workers (Bagchi 1995). Centralized unions with compactness now find it difficult to handle such diversities. Trade union leaders today are concerned about the effects of new technologies, but they cannot seriously oppose them. Because, technological superiority is required for any survival in the competitive market. ME technologies not only increase profitability and productivity, they also heighten the prestige and pride of the workers. Trade unions are, therefore, often seen engaged in suggesting and implementing plan and programmes of modernization. This is despite the fact that new technology causes redundancy and unemployment, and consequent shrinkage of union’s power. Again, it creates a new set of ‘elite’ workers whose interests are distinct from traditional workers. More importantly, the new technology has strike breaking and labour control capacity. All these contribute to de-unionisation, weakening of bargaining strength of trade unions and formation of independent or local trade union. The issue of technological modernization thus traps most trade unions into a vicious circle. If they oppose modernization, workers’ bargaining strength deteriorates. If, on the contrary, they give consent to such steps, management gains. The critical situation thus, becomes an ideal ground for company unionism and syndicalism.

Furthermore, the entry of global traders or TNC’s into local market has brought a new factor, international division of labour, into play. Now local disputes are to be solved internationally with the real master either hiding himself or remaining far away from the reach of any union activity. Working class then requires a new weapon to strike the far off targets. This calls for qualitative changes in the modus operandi of existing unions. In other words, trade unions’ fight against capitalism then becomes a political fight against imperialism eating into the economic (and political too) sovereignty of the nation. The expanding horizon and challenges of trade union struggle introduce both compulsions and hope for the future of working class struggle in the country.

6. Responses of our Unions to New Challenges

There are certain perceptible changes in the plans and programmes of our unions today as they have to comply with the compulsions of the market on the one hand, and also to act against the social and economic consequences of liberalisation, on the other. Initially, however, our trade unions particularly of the Left variety have protested vigorously against the anti-labour policies of government. But as it gradually became clear that the pressure in favour of market reforms could not be obstructed for long due to several national and international factors, unions have accepted globalisation as a force to reckon with in spite of reaching some sort of consensus against its anti-labour consequences. Indian trade unions have however become able at least partially to halt privatisation of the PSUs and to obstruct labour law reform. It may be argued that on the whole Indian trade unions have responded to the new challenges with a kind of pragmatism that seeks to forge the long cherished ideal of working class unity while accommodating and adjusting with the new reality. The dilemma of both cooperating and opposing the management at the same time now haunts our union leadership. This does not however mean that unionism has died down in the country. In spite of certain marked changes in their stratagems, trade unions are able to make their presence felt in both service and manufacturing sectors. The pattern of their responses however differ at the national, regional, sectoral or enterprise levels depending on factors like productivity and profitability of an organization, history of trade union struggle, political affiliation, level of unity among workers and their unions, response of the government and the like. The divergent faces of the same union at different levels explain the complexity of union politics today. Let us now discuss the major changes in trade union’s actions and policy prescriptions in brief.

6.1 Defensive Strategy

A cursory look into the lock-out and strike statistics in post reform period would make one believe that our unions have become defensive today. The limits of trade union action have become much more exposed today with the state providing ‘protection’ to the capital. Hence, strikes or Gherao’s are now being converted into gate meetings at lunch break, wearing a black badge during work or other innovative protest actions to draw public attention. As a corollary, the proportion of strikes in industrial disputes has declined even more sharply as compared to that of lock-outs. Almost similar experiences have been documented in other developing countries (Chakravarty 2002). Strike no longer appears to be a viable weapon of working class struggle today. Contrarily, if such an activity results in job losses through closure of the unit, workers become suspicious and sceptical about any attempt to ‘organise them’ (Roychowdhury 2005: 2252). Table 2 clearly shows that Indian trade unions, far from being aggressive, are at the receiving end these days.

Most remarkably, lock-outs are not only frequent; they also now last longer than strikes. The share of lock-outs in work stoppages was a mere 8 per cent during 1961-1964 and they increased to more than 30 per cent during 1990s (Sundar 2004: 4378). This, along with the increasing use of layoffs and closure, increase in unilateralism in rule making, and weakening of collective bargaining clearly support the ‘employer militancy’ view. Economic reforms have, thus, exposed limitations of our unions in the formal sector and force them to compromise with capital.

Union’s docility in general, however, does not rule out the possibility of sporadic aggression under certain conditions. Thus, for instance, unions are generally militant against closure or mass retrenchment. In most cases, industries adopting such steps witness the rise of ‘Bachao Committees’, a type of union formation stressing the unity of workers and depending on whatever options that are feasible. The workers of some cotton mills in Haryana, for instance, formed a Trade Union Council (TUC), a non-political joint front of INTUC, AITUC, HMS and CITU. The formation of TUC has led to the return of militant trade unionism in an otherwise peaceful Haryana. In the jute mills and engineering units of West Bengal a number of ‘save committees’ comprising all the workers irrespective of their union membership were formed during the last ten years (Ghosh 2008).

Sundar (2015) has shown that post reform period, especially the 2000s, saw a tremendous surge in worker’s mobilization in industrial conflicts. The newly industrialising areas and sites in Haryana, Punjab, Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu have witnessed some serious, even bloody, and prolonged conflict and protest in recent years. In many places, the employers initiated the move for work stoppage through lockouts. As a result, India figured among the top five work-stoppage-prone countries in the world. “As employers looked for green fields for investment, trade unions looked for green fields for unionisation” (Ibid.: 49).

6.2 Acceptance of Labour Flexibility Measures

Majority of our unions today cannot but have to accept labour flexibility measures. Initially, however, these measures are not welcomed by trade unions in any part of the world (Mamkoottam 2003: 67). But unions gradually understood that they couldn’t resist the process for long in the greater interest of workers and industry. In a study of 234 collective bargaining agreements during 1990s, Ratnam (2000: 261) has found that unions were not a hindrance to introducing labour flexibility measures in the firms. The trade union leaders in Mumbai, for instance, have accepted management’s right to introduce new technology. In some engineering organizations in and around Mumbai, the introduction of computer-controlled technology did not meet with much resistance. Because, the unions and workers were satisfied with ‘no retrenchment’ assurance given by the management (Bagchi 1995). Similarly, rice mill owners of Burdwan were allowed by the CITU to set up some completely mechanized ‘Mini Rice Mills’ to cut down labour cost. The union also had to scale down militancy for the sake of saving the industry facing crisis due to cheap import of rice (Ghosh 2001). Again, in the textile mills of Coimbatore, no major dispute regarding the VRS was noticed. There was also no evidence of a single strike in the modernized firms. The unions accepted the process of modernization and consequent VRS as the industry was going through bad phase for the last few years (Chakravarty 2002: 748). In the Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals as well as in Hindustan Copper, unions have agreed to defer wage revision. There are several other instances of unions accepting wage freeze. All these not only reflect a widening gap in the salary structure of our employees; it also exhibits a declining importance of collective bargaining as a method of resolving disputes.

6.3 Concern for Competitive Efficiency and Productivity of the Plant

Acceptance of the goal of competitive efficiency and productivity is a new role that many of our trade unions have picked up at plant level. Obviously, they are compelled to think seriously about the efficiency and productivity level of workers in a world that have no sympathy for the non-performers. There are several instances of union’s negotiating with the management to ensure higher productivity through technological changes in return for higher wages (Mamkoottam 2003: 105-129) and also cooperating with the management for the introduction of techniques and processes that lead to reduction in manpower and union’s strength. One direct consequence of such a realisation is that labour productivity levels and work culture in several industries today show definite signs of improvement. In Tata Steel and NICCO, labour productivity could be raised by 30-35 per cent after liberalisation. Similarly, Maruti Udyog’s productivity has increased to 120 per cent after reengineering during 2001-2002. The Report of the National Commission on Labour (2002: 64) also documented ‘impressive increase’ in our labour productivity. Many Indian companies have introduced quality circles and obtained ISO certificates. Cordial industrial relations in PSEs have also facilitated the process of productivity bargaining in many Indian industries. In recent years several PSEs have introduced productivity linked incentive payment schemes. As a consequence, Indian companies today are noticing better work culture.

6.4 Stress on Decentralised Bargaining & Company Unionism

The rise in company unionism and decentralised bargaining is an important development in post-liberalised India. Such developments normally take place when the rank and file workers become dissatisfied with the leadership of centralised unions and proceed to register their spontaneous will without any outside support. Often, the concern for survival also forces unions to strike a deal with the management at the local level without the involvement of any third party so that the interest of union members can best be defended. Sundar (2015: 46) has noted that 28.47 percent of industrial conflicts were resolved through mutual settlement in between 2000 and 2009. This also means that managers are also promoting better board practices and more responsible corporate governance (Balasubramanian, 2004: 64-83) notwithstanding large scale resistance. Of late, there are many instances of workers forming independent unions while defending their immediate interests against the will of established trade unions (Davala 1996). The growth of such small and independent unions is a reflection of the inability of major political unions to meet workers’ need. When established unions break down into smaller units for political, ideological or local issues, not only the unity of the working class gets weakened, more and more workers also lose their faith on the competence of union leadership.

What is more disturbing is that the retrenched, unemployed, underemployed or dissatisfied workers in the informal sectors are frequently turning to ethnic, linguistic and regional movements for assistance. The rise of communal fury in Gujarat or those occurring in Mumbai a few years back have been partially attributed to the closure of textile or cotton mills there. We have also noticed that the tea plantation workers of North Bengal or the cotton textile workers of Mumbai had earlier changed their loyalty from the Leftist trade unions to nativistic organization like GNLF and Shiv Sena almost en masse (Ghosh 2001: 91). When workers turn their back to class solidarity and join a platform that divides them on caste or community lines, the very objective of trade union movement is made unproductive and ineffectual.

Decentralised bargaining however necessitates a measure of cooperation between labour and management at the plant level to escape state regulation or outside pressure. The stress today is on solving a problem quickly through bilateral process or at best the intervention of a conciliator as arbitration or adjudication involves a too long and often unpredictable process. The prolific growth of decentralised bargaining in many factories in India has also given rise to independent company unions who basically concentrate on economic issues sacrificing their political radicalism or even affiliation to political parties. The trade union leaders of such units, in most cases, have even preferred to be with the ‘insiders’ or those who still continue in the job. But as the number of such insiders is getting incessantly less these days, trade unions face an uphill task to increase their support base. These developments have reinstated the need for broad base struggle of different sections of workers on common issues.

6.5 Shift from Leader Centred to Activist Controlled Unions

With growing importance of company unionism and decentralised bargaining, our unions are gradually moving from leader centred to activist controlled unions. Traditionally, unionism in India had encouraged outside political leadership to join the vocation and rank and file leaders hardly had any prominence in the trade union hierarchy. But, as Ramaswamy (1988) demonstrates, an activist controlled company union also minimises the need for outside political control. Along with this, the stress on workers’ unity at the grass root level through the formation of majority union as well as negotiating agent through ballot box may reduce the dependency on outside leadership. The process of leadership change at the operational level is however very slow as trade unions’ dependency on wider network and legal support has increased many folds these days. But, there is no doubt about the fact that unions are now really confronted with the issue of ‘leadership crisis’ at the plant level. This is also due to the fact that many of the senior workers and old trade union leaders have either retired or opted for VRS, and the new generation of skilled ‘achievers’ is showing very little interest in replacing them. In this respect, the setting up of the Asian Trade Union College at Kolkata is a welcome development as it aims at training rank and file workers to trade unionism.

6.6 Forging Working Class Unity at the Wider Level

Trade union of any variety today needs to stress on the unity of workers at least at the wider level to contain the onslaught of LPG. Trade union unity is a necessity today at both national and international levels to sustain and keep such movement alive. The process began with the formation of National Campaign Committee of Trade Unions in 1980s, which includes all central but BMS and INTUC unions. Later, when the Government proposed reforms in labour laws, there was unusual blending of unions from red to saffron. There are several instances of unions like BKS (Bharatiya Kamgar Sena), BMS, INTUC, CITU, AITUC and HMS coming together under one aegis and resisting anti-labour laws and globalisation, in essence. It is such pressure that prompted the leaders of Hind Mazdoor Sabha and All India Trade Union Congress to think about their merger in 1997. The merger did not materialise, but both the central trade unions agreed to cooperate with each other in resolving common issues.

As trade unions now have to fight bigger enemies that may be either the Government initiating anti-labour reforms, or the powerful multinational making use of the International Division of Labour, or even the entire system of capitalist economy, they have to come together under one aegis. These unions today organize joint rally, joint strike or joint action at plant, state and national levels. Several general strikes involving crores of workers and employees were called over the last one and half decade. Notwithstanding the differences among labour unions on several counts, they are united in opposing retrenchment, downsizing, closure, privatisation, disinvestments and proposals to amend Industrial Disputes Act, Contract Labour Act or Trade Union Act. Even if these unions fail to reach a consensus on any particular course of action, they hardly oppose that action. There is also some unity of workers at the grass root level irrespective of union affiliation.

The ground reality, thus, does not favour any confrontation among even politically opposed trade unions. In the strategic industries like banking, insurance, steel, transport, coal, power, fertilizer, telecom, shipping, post & telegraph, port & dock, mining and oil, this unity of workers has already set an example before all others. While this unity of Right and Left trade unions has set an alarm for the management and administration, it also reflects the desperation of our unions to stop their marginalisation in industrial life.

6.7 Stress on Issues affecting the People in general

It has been noted earlier that our unions except a few hardly bothered to take people into confidence for any of their action before the introduction of economic reforms. Consequently, the contiguity between organised labour and society, which led the foundation of our trade union movement before Independence, could not be perpetuated for long. General public today hardly sympathise with union’s self-centred style of functioning. While concentrating on bread and butter issues, unions also rarely provided any logistic support to fellow comrades in the nearby industry and preferred to fight or compete with the rival one. But today, trade unions cannot take the risk of antagonising even their political opponents, and they also need the support of the people more than ever before. This is because they are now exposed to greater risks involving the ‘entire system’ and not just any particular enemy. Hence, involving the people in union’s fight can help them bolster working class movement. This is more pertinent in case of company unions fighting a lone battle. Unions’ reduced militancy, lack of dependency on strike and unity at the wider level also attempts to appease the general public. The preference for state or national level strike with the support of different sections of our society is another indication of our unions’ changed approach. Also, the unions are seen squatting on the streets instead of the factory gate or office to explain and influence the public about a particular development. This strategy is particularly utilised by the employees of industries like Banks who are serious about customer’s satisfaction.

The issues that trade unions are picking up today also relate to general concern of the society. In fact, globalisation has provided a new space for our trade unions to flourish. Issues like unemployment, poverty, human rights, social security, occupational training for the unemployed, privatisation, contract labour, child labour, rights of women workers, concern for clean environment, etc., have garnered a new vitality to trade union movement. It is fascinating to hear that our union’s today talk on issues like ‘human development’. This shows that our trade unions are willing to handle non-economic interests of the workers today, a development that hardly could find a place in the history of our trade union struggle even some decades ago.

6.8 Attempts to Organise the Unorganised Workers

Unions today are concerned about the expanding ‘unorganised’ section of labour. They have now realized that it would be difficult to retain whatever gains they could achieve if workers remain ‘unorganised’. Such a realization has prompted some NGOs and new trade unions to involve casual, temporary and workers of informal sectors in their fight for social security, minimum wage, and justified life. There are encouraging signs of new thinking and efforts by some unions today and the membership of our central trade unions, as stated earlier, has significantly increased over the last five years due to this.

The AITUC, in its Bangalore session held in December 1983, gave a call to ‘organise the unorganised’ as a priority task. The call has been repeated at the Vadodara, Madras and Patna sessions. AITUC has its unions/federations in beedi, cigar, leather, construction, fisheries and loading unloading in some central Government undertaking like the Food Corporation of India. It is now attempting to strengthen its All India Confederation on Building and Construction Workers by targeting the 30 million unorganised construction workers at different parts of the country. Similarly, all other major central trade unions have all begun focusing special attention on the task of organising the unorganised workers. As a result of these efforts, a new path of trade unionism is gradually emerging in the country. There are many recent examples of NGO like Proto Unions taking up developmental and welfare activities (health, housing, education, street light, water, sanitation, credit, etc.) of the unorganised and self-employed workers while avoiding any direct confrontation with the employers. For instance, SEWA of Ahmedabad, Working Women’s Forum of Chennai, Karnataka Koligeri Nivase Sangathan, Civil Initiatives For Development of Bangalore, Pune City Domestic Workers’ organization, etc., have began effectively helping the informal sector workers many of whom are women. These movements have more often targeted the state or local administration for the poor conditions of the informal sector workers, their families or the me mbers of the community as a whole (Roychowdhury 2005; Jabvala and Subrahmanya 2000, Kalpagam 1994). According to Ratnam and Jain (2002), these unions are creating social unionism, thereby rewriting the meaning of trade unionism. The focus is on broad objectives of empowerment, development and fighting for the rights of informal sector workers rather than business unionism of North American variety.

7. Conclusion

This is the worst and best of times to analyse the state trade unionism in India. It is worst because of the shrinking empire of the organised labour movement and best because of a new hope for Social Unionism across societies and cultures. What is significant for us is trade unionism has acquired new significance in the new economy. The new stratagems of trade unions, despite certain challenges and complexities, are capable of countering the ill effects of neo-liberal globalisation on workers and communities. There is therefore perceptible change 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. The changes cited in the policy, prescriptions and conditions of our unions suggest that it is too early to write off their potential. 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’. Hence, aspirations for democracy, social justice or human rights along with concerns for productivity, quality, and professionalism are gradually spreading into our industrial life. 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. It is imperative that the old perception and mindsets about the workforce should change to elicit co-operation and involvement. It is equally essential that trade unions rise up to the occasion to realise their full potential.