COMMENTARY

For a Minimum Living Wage

Workers March to Parliament
Srinivasan Ramani

On 12 December, nearly a lakh of workers predominantly from the unorganised sector marched to Parliament to demand a minimum living wage, social security measures and regularisation of work. The call had been given by trade unions across the political spectrum and the participants came from all parts of the country. However, mainstream and popular media remained indifferent and ignored the rally, as always.

Email: srini@epw.in

early one lakh workers marched from the Ramlila Maidan to Parliament on 12 December in New Delhi. The rally was the culmination of a year-long campaign by a number of trade unions and included a 48-hour national strike in February 2013. The workers were demanding higher minimum wages, social security, and implementation of labour laws among a charter of 10 demands.1 The trade unions represented included the Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh (BMS-afliated to the Sangh parivar), the Indian National Trade Union Congress (INTUC the labour arm of the Congress Party), the All-India Trade Union Congress (AITUC associated with the Communist Party of India (CPI)), the Centre of Indian Trade Unions (CITU of the Communist Party of India (Marxist)), and the Hindustan Mazdoor Sangh (HMS) along with a number of others associated with other left and regional parties. The mobilisation was dominated by the leftist unions which have periodically
DECember 28, 2013

called such rallies over the years to protest against the exploitation of the working population resulting from the centres economic reforms. The rst set of demands was put forward by the trade unions jointly in September 2009. In the three years between then and September 2011, two general strikes were called and a total set of 10 demands were again presented to the government. All these actions however met with complete indifference from the centre. The unions then called a 48-hour general strike from 20 to 21 February 2013. This time around there was an immediate reaction and the union representatives were invited for talks a week before the scheduled strike. A three-member ministerial committee to be headed by Defence Minister A K Antony was also set up. The Antony Committee met the central trade union representatives in May but only sought more time to come up with recommendations apropos the demands. At this juncture, the trade unions decided that they had to go ahead with plans for a nationwide mobilisation and rally in New Delhi in December. Rally with a Difference The 12 December rally was qualitatively different perhaps its mobilisation from across various parts of the country
vol xlvIiI no 52
EPW Economic & Political Weekly

12

COMMENTARY

(from Kashmir to Kanyakumari and from Tripura to Gujarat as CITU general secretary A K Padmanabhan put it) was most representative of Indias labour force than other similar rallies in the capital. A large number of workers men and women gathered at the venue came from the huge informal sector that characterises Indias labour economy. From hawkers to contract workers and part-time health and sanitation workers to those engaged in small businesses and trading enterprises, the composition of the rally was distinct. Generally such rallies are dominated by workers from the organised manufacturing and tertiary sectors. Padmanabhan argued that,
the largest number of members mobilised in all trade unions are from the unorganised sector. There is a general tendency to state that the central trade unions are only connected to the organised sector. But 65% of the members of our own organisation, the CITU consist of unorganised workers. I think there is an image created by the media that we are seeking to be representative. This is not true as we are trying to mobilise handloom workers, sanitation workers, and domestic helpers among others for a very long time.

One reason for the huge presence of informal sector workers was that many of the 10 demands in the charter related to them. The immediate and most pressing demand was that of xing the minimum wage to not less than Rs 10,000 per month linked with the consumer price index and an amendment to the Minimum Wages Act to ensure universal coverage irrespective of schedules. The general opinion was that the amount had to be the minimum living wage across the country considering price rise and living conditions. The demand for assured pension for the entire population (and a social security act) also found resonance with employees in the informal sector. Part-time workers in the National Rural Health Mission (NRHM), domestic helpers and accredited social health activists (ASHAs) had enthusiastically taken part in the agitations in order to secure pension provisions among other demands. The NRHM workers also mentioned that they had been summarily dismissed from their jobs without notice and sought reinstatement.
Economic & Political Weekly EPW

The rally, in sum, featured workers from a number of different sectors. AITUC leader and CPI national secretary, Amarjeet Kaur pointed to participants at the rally from the postal services, the railways, defence, petroleum, telecommunications, air transport and services, construction, the mid-day meal scheme, ASHAs, anganwadi workers, domestic workers, agricultural workers and sh workers, among others. The diversity in participation was reected in the specicity of demands and concerns among each sector. If the HMS union members working in pharmaceutical plants in Gurgaon, Haryana were incensed with rising living costs, lack of adequate compensation, nonregularisation of their employment and long working hours, the CITU afliated engineering workers from Tamil Nadu were equally angry about such issues. Part-time women employees of the NRHM sought regularisation of their work and withdrawal of the practice of sudden termination. Domestic helpers sought social security; hawkers complained about unending police harassment and their need for licences, hoping that a bill being discussed in Parliament on their behalf would soon be passed. Trade union representatives were not only exercised about these demands, they also face challenges as organisers in the present-day globalised economy. A CITU representative from Tamil Nadu, who belonged to an engineering workers union, acknowledged the new difculties. With multinational employers having the ability to coerce governments to stymie labour unrest with the threat of shifting their factories elsewhere, it was incumbent upon workers to show transnational/trans-federal unity, he said. Last year, a joint strike of workers based in Tamil Nadu and South Korea foregrounding concerns with factory management was one endeavour that showed how they could rise up to the challenge, he said. A BMS trade union representative (based in Uttar Pradesh) said that the union was putting pressure on its sister organisation, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) to address worker concerns and to evolve pro-labour and poor-friendly
vol xlvIiI no 52

policies. Unity with leftist trade unions was not simply out of compulsion, he afrmed. Empty Promises The trade union leaders were peeved at the governments response to their agitations. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had in May, after attending the Indian Labour Conference and agreeing with the justness of the demands by the trade unions, promised to meet with the leaders within a month after consultations with the Antony Committee. The meeting was yet to take place, Padmanabhan said. The UPA government has shown more alacrity in addressing the concerns of big business heads, and has generally shown little interest in being briefed directly by labour leaders let alone seeking inputs from them for policy. Following the large rally, a delegation of trade union representatives met the defence minister and handed over a memorandum with the demands and also sought speedier implementation of the committees recommendations. They later met the prime minister and were told that the nance minister would consider their demands, in particular the Rs 10,000 minimum wage issue. Media Indifference Following the usual and familiar pattern, popular media ignored the massive workers rally in total contrast to the disproportionate coverage provided to even the smallest protest rallies. Obviously, the angst of the workers so visible at this and previous rallies failed to attract the attention of this media. New Delhis Jantar Mantar is well known as Indias protest zone rather than as the location for architectural astronomy as it was historically meant to be. It is here that discontents of various kinds get expressed through speeches, fasts, agitations, and marches. Media attention is always xated on this or that agitation which takes place at this venue; sometimes disproportionate attention and hyperbole is provided as the Anna Hazare-led campaign for a Jan Lokpal Bill showed. Even as lakhs of workers gathered in central Delhi culminating in the rally
13

DECember 28, 2013

COMMENTARY

at Jantar Mantar, the media seemed oblivious. Barring honourable exceptions in the print media, an otherwise hyperactive electronic media remained completely silent about the worker unrest. In fact, the foreign press paid more heed to a similar workers rally in Delhi in February 2011 compared to the Indian media.2 Leftist trade union activists mentioned that the increased and diverse participation in worker protests and the popularity of their demands was due to the impact of neo-liberal reforms, which had hurt a large section of the working population. That did not necessarily mean that the participants in the rally were ideologically conscious about neo-liberal policy and bias in

policymaking. A reversal of neo-liberalism because of popular opposition was possible only if that gap between realisation of outcomes and that of policy was breached, they argued. But this task of explaining policy to the people was a difcult task for the trade unions alone to shoulder and they needed media coverage and civil society support for their cause. With an unsympathetic media dominated by special interests who allow coverage only for some liberal causes, the central trade unions burden is that much higher.

Notes
1 The demands included (1) Urgent measures for containing price-rise through universalisation of public distribution system and banning 2

speculative trade in commodity market, (2) Containing unemployment through concrete measures for employment generation, (3) Strict enforcement of all basic labour laws without any exception or exemption and stringent punitive measures for violation of labour laws, (4) Universal social security cover for all workers, (5) Minimum wages of not less than Rs 10,000 per month with provisions of indexation, (6) Assured pension for the entire working population, (7) Stoppage of disinvestment in Central/State PSUs, (8) Stoppage of contractorisation in permanent perennial work and payment of same wage and benets for contract workers as regular workers for same and similar work, (9) Removal of all ceilings on payment and eligibility of bonus, provident fund; increase the quantum of gratuity, (10) Compulsory registration of trade unions within a period of 45 days and immediate ratication of ILO Conventions nos 87 and 98 quoted verbatim from a memorandum presented by the central trade unions to the government. See Medias (Lack of) Coverage of Workers Rally in Delhi, http://www.pragoti.in/node/ 4300, accessed on 13 December 2013.

14

DECember 28, 2013

vol xlvIiI no 52

EPW

Economic & Political Weekly