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.