Join News Letter

Iraq War

Peak Oil

Climate Change

US Imperialism

Palestine

Communalism

Gender/Feminism

Dalit

Globalisation

Humanrights

Economy

India-pakistan

Kashmir

Environment

Gujarat Pogrom

WSF

Arts/Culture

India Elections

Archives

Links

Submission Policy

Contact Us

Fill out your
e-mail address
to receive our newsletter!
 

Subscribe

Unsubscribe

 

In Defence Of Workers' Right
To Organization

By K. Venugopal Reddy

15 September, 2005
Countercurrents.org

There is a widely held perception that trade unions are a nuisance to industrial prosperity. And so, there are often demands for some sort of ban on strikes as an instrument of struggle by organized employees. It is a preposterous position and it is fraught with dangerous consequences for the future of organized working class movement in India. Arguments of this kind advanced in support of ban on workers organization and curtailment of their constitutionally guaranteed rights to improve their living economic standards are only indicative of the growing reactionary and fascist trends in Indian society.

The demand for ban on the strikes by the industrial workers is not new and it betrays the typical and old capitalistic argument that has been advanced ever since the workers began to press for redressal of the grievances by the capitalists through their organizations. They also sharply reveal the biased and contemptuous attitude of the adherents of capitalism to the problems of the workers in general. But the mute question that needs to be pondered over is the strength that it gains and the significance it acquires in the present context of the globalization and the movement of transnational capital. The global capital aligned and buttressed by the indigenous capital does not wish to encounter any hurdles in its proclaimed mission of transforming the hitherto backward, under-developed and post-colonial societies. It wants muffled industrial labour to work in friction-free environment; docile workers, who can be hired or fired at its own (in)discretion. Therefore, there is a very potent demand from every fortress of capitalism for 'flexible' labour laws and to restrain the militancy of the working class.

Myth of MNCs role in economic progress:

There is a myth that rests on the notion that the MNCs are harbingers of global equality. Are MNCs the wealth creators and poverty reducers in India as the supporters of global capitalism tend to argue? Certainly the argument is flawed. Capitalism survives and progresses on iniquitous distribution of wealth by exploiting the productive resources and thus breeds not reduce the intrinsic contradictions between the workers and the capitalist. It cannot be the leveler of economic inequalities. In deed, the
development of capitalism and its needs led to the establishment of most obnoxious and rapacious system of Colonialism in South Asia, Africa and Latin America. And indisputably, Colonialism was the main culprit of the underdevelopment in the third world countries. Given this historical backdrop, it would be naïve thinking that the rapid advance of capitalism would promote rapid economic equality. The plea for unfettered market economy and greater thrust for privatization put forward by the neo-liberals is therefore an oblique move to promote and strengthen the hold of neo-Colonialism in the poverty-stricken third world countries.

It is therefore that the options for India are not limited to encouraging foreign direct investment (FDI) at the cost of the rights of the workers to form and run a trade union, engage in collective bargaining, ensure their participation in the decision-making process, negotiate for fair wages, and ensure non-discriminatory policies and humane treatment. Various laws and tripartite settlements in the country need to be followed. Even while encouraging FDI, the state must ensure that the rights of the workers are protected.

Widening class contradictions:

While the strike of the Railway workers in May 1974 was a resounding success in mobilizing the workers, a police and paramilitary operation eventually crushed it. The strike of the Gurgaon workers in July 2005 was a remarkable example of the courage and determination of the workers during the strike period and their confrontation with the police symbolizes the fearlessness of the workers to preserve their legitimate right to organization and strike. The period of three decades spanning the two great historic episodes of working class struggle has not witnessed softening of the antagonism that exist between the workers and the capitalists. In fact, the phenomenon of aggressive privatization and rapid globalization is promoting and sharpening the contradictions between them. The strike of the Gurgaon workers thus dismisses the notion 'that the concept of class as social category is becoming irrelevant'.

Raison d'être for preserving the right of workers to organization:

There are millions of slum dwellers living on the margins in urban areas. A considerable number of slum dwellers are engaged in industrial occupations and on account of insufficient wages, they are forced to live under filthy, unhygienic and inhospitable conditions. Of course, there are also millions of industrial workers employed in medium and small-scale industries. Long hours of work, improper living conditions and very low wages characterize the life of industrial workers employed in those relatively unorganized and small-scale industries. Thus, there are several millions of workers, who are being exploited and oppressed by the employers. Now, the crucial question is whether these workers have to be deprived of their right to trade union activity to earn a better pay and decent working conditions and to defend their social and economic interests, or to organize themselves to secure their rights. The trade unions are the only instruments that the workers can employ in their endeavour to secure better economic conditions. Hence, trade unions in India have not become 'irrelevant' as
supporters of privatization and globalization have posited it. They constitute very vital links in the functioning and regulation of modern industrial system in the bourgeoisie democratic societies. If the trade unions were banned, it would only mean snapping of those vital links. The concomitant consequence is the crisis ridden industrial and social system.

Given the prevailing conditions of semi-slavery and excruciating conditions for a vast mass of workforce employed in different, medium and small scale industries like, transport, construction, beedi-making, printing and book binding, tobacco etc., it is quite unscientific to assume that the trade
unions are 'irrelevant' and the 'concept of class' has become 'outdated'. In a sharp and rapidly developing capitalist societies like India, the antagonism between the 'haves' and 'have nots' is not getting vanished but only promoted by the internal contradictions of the capitalist system. It is
interesting to quote the reflection of Stephen Sherlock. Writing on the Railway Workers' strike inMay 1974 (Economic and Politicla Weekly, Vol, XXIV, No. 41, October, 14, 1989), he observes: "Following the winning of independence, the Indian masses were promised a steadily improving standard of living through a 'socialistic pattern of society'. . It is sufficient to note that the forces of the world market and the maldistribution of power within Indian society ensured that it could not succeed. The Indian masses bore the brunt of the failure." Therefore given the present scenario, there is all the more need for industrial workers to protect their right to organization and movement to resist the onslaught of the capitalists on their rights and to better their deteriorating conditions.


 

 

Google
WWW www.countercurrents.org

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Search Our Archive



Our Site

Web