REPORT
on
The one-day
Conference
on
PRECARIOUS WORKERS IN MANUFACTURING SECTOR IN INDIA
5th
November, 2014
Convention
centre, JNU, New Delhi
|
Organized by:
CSLG,
JNU, New Delhi
&
ICLR,
NewYork
Conference
organizers:
Dr. Jaivir Singh,
Associate Professor,
Centre
for the Study of Law and Governance,
JNU, New Delhi.
Ramapriya
Gopalakrishnan,
Lawyer, Chennai
International
Commission for Labor Rights
Convener:
Pankaj
Kumar,
In service PhD student,
Centre
for the Study of Law and Governance,
91-9013002296
(Mob.)
Rapporteurs:
Shuchi
Bharti, Garima Sharma and Ambika Prasad
Mphil Students,
Centre
for the Study of Law and Governance,
Supported
by:
Jawaharlal
Nehru University, New Delhi
&
International
Commission for Labor Rights,
New
York Nehru University,
New
CONFERENCE
PROGRAMME (5.11.2014)
|
10:00– 11:00 AM
|
Overview of precarious work in the manufacturing
sector in India (Chair:Amit Prakash, JNU)
Ramapriya Gopalakrishnan,
Senior Lawyer, Chennai
Babu
P Remesh, IGNOU
Sikander Kumar, Research scholar
Rahul Roy, Film maker
|
|
11:00 –12:00 PM
|
Challenges faced by the working class on account of the rise in
precarious work (Chair:
Saumyajit Bhattacharya, DU)
Amarjeet Kaur, AITUC
Rakhi Sehgal, NTUI
Khushi
Ram and Sunil Kaushik (Representatives of Maruti
workers)
Amitabh Johri & Ramesh Tiwari
(Representatives of Mahindra workers, Rudurpur)
|
|
12:00 – 12:30 PM
|
Implications of the proposed law reforms and the Manufacturing Policy
(Chair: Rampriya Gopalakrishnan)
Usha Ramanathan,
Independent Researcher
Jitendra
Sharma, Senior Lawyer, Supreme Court
|
|
12:30 – 1:30 PM
|
Discussion
|
|
1:30 - 2:30 PM
|
Lunch
Break
|
|
2:30 – 3:30 PM
|
Precarious Work and Voices from the Labour Administration and Business
(Chair: Rakhi Sehgal, NTUI)
Michael
Dias, Senior Lawyer, Supreme Court
Ravi Wig, ASSOCHAM ( Chairman,
Wig Brothers)
Rajender Dhar, Additional Labour
Commissioner, Delhi
|
3:30- 4:30 PM
|
The rise in precarious work globally and efforts made by the ILO and
global unions to combat the challenges posed by the rise in precarious work.
(Chair:
Jaivir Singh)
Jeanne Mirer, ICLR
Coen Kompier. ILO
Surendra Nath, Amity University (former Chief
Labour Commissioner (Central))
G. Manicandan, Independent Researcher
|
|
4:30 – 5:30 PM
|
Discussion and Road Ahead
Jaivir Singh, JNU
Ramapriya GopalaKrishnan, ICLR
|
Session I: Overview of Precarious Work in the Manufacturing Sector in INDIA
Chair: Professor Amit
Prakash, JNU
Speaker: Ramapriya Gopalakrishnan, Senior Lawyer, Chennai
Gopalakrishnan focused her presentation on the findings of her
study titled “Shattered dreams shining cars” which she had conducted along with
Jeanne Mirer for the ICLR, on labour practices in automobile factories in
Chennai and their respective supplier factories. Her study intends to determine
how labour practices impact freedom of association and collective bargaining
rights among workers. The multinational corporations in the study included
Hyundai, Nissan-Renault and Ford. After recapping the eight categories of
workers engaged in work, the results of the research showed that,
·
The
condition of precarious workers not only mask the relationships in workplace
but also the nature of work that workers are engaged in, such that precarious
workers may perform the same work as permanent workers but do not get the
commensurate wages.
·
Dispelling
the misconception that they are engaged only in peripheral and not core jobs,
the findings showed that contract labour engage in quality checking also and
are sometimes qualified graduates.
·
There
are a number of pretexts for deducting wages, such as wages deducted for small
expenses and also linking wages to attendance, which further exacerbates the
already fractious wages.
·
Workers,
including women, are made to do overtime work without commensurate wages and
lawful provisions pertaining to leave are not followed.
·
There
is little prospect for future employment, as many workers are terminated after
training period.
Thus, as a result of lack of inspection and weak unionization
including in supplier factories, there is a huge deficit in Chennai automobile
sector which needs to be addressed by strengthening labour laws and reducing
the leeway for employers.
Speaker: Babu Ramesh, Asst.
Professor, IGNOU, New Delhi
Addressing the general deleterious state of labour
legislation and practices at the national and state levels in the country, Mr.
Ramesh spoke of the state of precarious workers in the larger context of
jobless economic growth and lack of reduction of absolute poverty. Arguing that
workers in both unorganized sector, producing nearly 50 percent of the gross
domestic output, and organized sector exist in a precarious condition, Mr.
Ramesh argued that a reduction in the unit labour cost has led to the dilution
of labour as a factor of production. Apart from ineffective labour legislation,
entailing lack of written contract, dilution in safety standards and weak
unionization, at a more broad level, it is also the disparity increasing at
multiple levels, such as rural and urban, that needs to be recognized. The crux
of the problem lies in recognizing that the state itself is an employer that
supports the informalization of labour through its formal policies, including
activist states like Kerala. To address the growing precariousness in all
sectors, and not just manufacturing, policy direction needs revision.
Speaker: Sikandar Kumar, Research Scholar, University of
Delhi
Mr. Kumar’s presentation was framed within a historical
analysis through the location of the current labour legislation in the context
of the linkages since the colonial period. He argued that the inception of the
factory legislation in the 19th century (1875-91) had a legal and
structural impact on shaping the idea of precarious workers, based on the
neo-liberal political economic veneration of markets seen in the British laws
and going back to the classical laissez faire philosophy of that time. The
‘naturalization of poverty’ was activated through a range of legislations,
apart from the controversial penal law that mandated the ‘duty to work’. While
the period from 1871 onwards saw a break through the impetus to labour
protection, this was yet done only to better promote the neo-liberal imperative
of productivity. Even nationalists supported ‘competitive capitalism’ and opposed
social legislation in the name of promoting indigenous industry. It is these
views that are reproduced in today’s labour laws by linking poverty and
unemployment to necessity of child labour and reproduction of duty to work
through the poverty argument and various cultural transpositions. More broadly,
we also see the state-capital authoritative nexus to maximize production
without requisite labour protection.
Speaker: Rahul Roy, Filmmaker
Highlighting a completely different sociological aspect of
precariousness of workers, based on his work in Manesar, Mr. Roy argued that
this precariousness was a deeply pathological condition. After observing the
consensus between villagers going after rent as a primary source of income
through setting up of more factories and the management, he described how
workers are controlled and subjected on a daily basis, as their behavior, norms
and material preferences are regulated. This pathological condition is
exacerbated by the close power links between the management and the government
labour department, which even installs its own spies in factories.
Session II: Challenges faced by the working class
on account of the rise in precarious work
Chair: Saumyajit Bhattacharya, Delhi
University
Speaker: Amarjeet Kaur, AITUC
Highlighting the linkages between management and labour
department in a neo-liberal economic model, Ms. Kaur focused on the current
government legislation that seeks to ‘legalize illegalities’. This is likely to
exacerbate the lack of unionization, already persistent due to the deliberate
encouragement of cultural inter-state barriers, and will throw SMEs out of the
loop of labour laws, apart from completely disregarding the tripartite
structure endorsed by the ILO. Criticizing the sporadic nature of modernization
in India, Ms. Kaur highlighted the numerous far-flung problems that this leads
to, such as Indian women pickle manufacturers losing market in Los Angeles.
More broadly, attacking the unilateral decision-making in case of current
labour legislation, Ms. Kaur argued that current camouflaging showed that the
state itself is a key violator of laws. She advocated introducing reforms
through the state governments where contestation will become easier rather than
through the centre.
Speaker: Sunil
Kaushik, Maruti worker, Manesar
Mr. Kaushik recapped the numerous problems faced by the
Maruti workers since 2006. They face problems on account of salary, working
conditions, lack of permanent employment, lack of holidays and difficulties
faced in forming a union. He exposed how the Maruti Company sought to divide
both the Manesar and Gurgaon plants, despite the presence of common management
in both. He concluded with a plea for help and support for the workers.
Speaker: Khushi Ram, Maruti worker, Manesar
Contrasting the state of unionization in Honda and Maruti,
Mr. Ram argued that while there was lot of gap between permanent and contract
workers in Honda, the Maruti workers were deeply united, as both suffer the
same kind of oppression. After criticizing the flexible hire and fire policy
and no regard to work quality, Mr. Ram attacked the trade unions also for their
rhetoric and lack of action.
Speaker: Ramesh Tiwari, Contract worker, Mahindra, Rudrapur
In a contrast from the critical viewpoint of Maruti workers,
Mr. Tiwari argued that apart from the management, even the workers need to
assume responsibility. While from 2006-09, the state of workers in his company
was deleterious, this changed after the formation of the union. He advised that
workers should meet production and other targets so that the management does
not get cause to complain. It is not always the management which is wrong.
Speaker: Rakhi Sehgal, NTUI
Acknowledging agreement with Mr. Sikandar Kumar on the
compulsion of duty to work, Ms. Sehgal focused on how labour is sought to be
disciplined through market forces and patriarchy in order to preserve the
contract between capital and labour. Describing the ‘open class warfare’ going
on in Gurgaon belt, Ms. Sehgal argued that imprisonment and threats towards
workers go way back before the Maruti and Honda struggles. Industrial relations
transform into a law and order problem and further into an internal security
issue as is happening now. Like in US, in India too, there are ‘prison innovation’
and a thriving ‘prison complex’, as no laws apply in jail at all. Noting a
policy contradiction, Ms. Sehgal argued that there was no point in speaking of
trying to get employment for workers who have more than 5 years of jail
sentence, as they will not get employment due to stigma attached. Therefore,
unions and workers face new and direr challenges. She reiterated Ms. Kaur point
that they are ready for labour legislation in states and there is a need to
unite all workers.
Session III: Implications of the Proposed Law Reforms and the
Manufacturing Policy
Chair: Rampriya
Golapakrishan, Lawyer, Chennai
The expected speakers were Usha Ramanathan, B.T. Kaul and
Jitendra Sharma but due to some unprecedented reasons, B.T. Kaul was unable to
attend the session.
Speaker:Usha Ramanathan, Independent Researcher
Contextualizing labour reforms in wider context of political
change in India, Usha Ramanathan, first, highlighted three important phenomena
that have emerged out with the types of reforms done so far—dispensability,
marginalization and disappearance or invisiblization of trade unions. The labour
unions, as Ramanathan told, are not even invited as the forums where the labour
reforms could be discussed—such unions working on behalf of workforce are marginalized,
made dispensable and invisible while bringing out the reforms.
Hence, not only workers but also labour rights activists have been taken as be
redundant.
Ramanathan, then, discussed the idea of Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU). By MOU she was referring to the type of agreements and
arrangements taking place between capital and the state. Such agreements
between employers and the government are aimed to ensure law and order around
workplaces. Through such type of MOUs, the employers are able to control labour
protests simply by making state forces absent and mobilizing the securities
provided to guard the premises. Therefore, the reforms are mere regulations of
labour rather than the reform. She strengthened her argument by exemplifying it
with the provision made in the Child Labour Act, 1986 and the contradictory
reality on the ground.
As per Ramanathan, there is high discrepancy in case of labour
in India accompanied by no employee productivity at all. The type of compliance
of the reforms with capital has rendered ‘absolute offence’ to the employed
group. It is in direct contradiction to the constitution as the basic
presumption of fundamental law is to protect the weaker against the stronger.
The significant number of workers is being excluded from the domain of labour
laws rather than being addressed. This is happening everywhere—in Chhattisgarh,
in Madhyapradesh and in Rajastahan. Hence, all the labour reforms including the
reform known as 7B5 (that is about to be implemented soon) are to be under
recurrent audit. She firmly stood against the type of encouragement that INGOs
have been making to the Reforms.
Speaker: Jitendra Sharma, Senior Lawyer, Supreme Court
Jitendra Sharma argued that the labour law reforms would
further deteriorate the situation of labour law. According to him, the reforms
in labour are anti-labour and anti-people. He highlighted on some of the
contradictions inherent in different labour laws. The question of ‘what
industry is’ and ‘what is not an industry’ is an example of such contradiction.
The Industrial District Act and Bangalore Water Supply Act are in contradiction
regarding what industry is. In spite of
clearing out such contradictions, the labour laws, as Sharma views, are not
much reforming. Rather there is a type of categorization of lawyers and judges
on their decisions regarding labour issues. Some are categorized as pro-labour
while others as pro-capital. The pro-labour judges as well as advocates are
regarded as troublemaker, thus, as intolerable.
He also talked about the type of upcoming reforms on labour
and the anticipated impacts they could to make. According to him, Small
Factories Act has no relevance while it is being presented in the Parliament.
The industry that contains workers less than forty is defined as a small
industry, but he questioned what happens if an industry possesses just
thirty-nine workers. Is it still a small industry? What will happen to the
workers working in such industries? He
also mentioned the examples of adverse impacts of contracting out and
outsourcing taking place everywhere. In the list of twenty laws relating to
labour, as he argued, not a single law addressed the problems aforementioned. Hence
he concluded that some laws are intended to keep majority of the workers off
from the purview of reforms anticipated to come on behalf of workers.
Session IV: Precarious
Work and Voices from the Labour Administration and Business
Chair:
Rakhi Sehgal, New Trade Union Initiative
Due to unscheduled meetings in their respective departments,
Piyush Sharma who had to chair the session and Onkar Sharma, one of the
presenters of the session were unable come for the conference. Rakhi Sehgal,
therefore was deputed for chairing the session
Speaker: Michael Dias, Senior Lawyer,
Supreme Court
Michael agreed with the panelists
from the previous sessions that the arguments made by them are correct and he
agrees with all the aspects. However, he focused on the fact that one also needs
to take cognizance that India as a country cannot survive on its own and it
needs to match up to the global market driven competitive environment.
Employers are left with no choice many a times as the nature of their
businesses have also got irregular.
The second vital point that Michael
raised was pertaining to the labour laws. He highlighted that the labour laws
have been more of impediments then facilitators towards implementing better
policies. He finally suggested to the panelists and audience that jumping to
the extremes would not help the deteriorating situation of precariousness of
labour. He concluded by saying that there needs to be rational steps taken
forward which should include getting rid of the redundant provisions in the law
and considering the problems of the employers in the fiercely competitive
market environment.
Speaker: Ravi Wig, Representative ASSOCHAM (Chairman, Wig
Brothers)
Ravi attempted to explain that it is a grossly misunderstood
concept in today’s times that we think that the things which are in the best
interest of the workers are not in the best interest of the employers. He added
that the labour laws in India have a major drawback that they do not have trust
on the employers. He also mentioned that it is disappointing for the employers
that they are grossly overburdened by the responsibility of proving that they
are abiding by the rules. He concluded by suggesting that laws need review and
there needs to be mutual trust built on the employers and employees.
Speaker: Rajender Dhar, Additional Labour Commissioner, Delhi
Rajender Dhar started his presentation with
highlighting the issues faced in India by the labour departments, industries
and workforce. He explained that law has many aspects that are not clearly
understood and at the same time does not have relevance in present context. He
added that there needs to me a holistic approach which could deal with the
issues of labour in the country. He further talked about issues faced by the
industries in the country who themselves go through precariousness pertaining
to getting order and getting profit. He suggested that there needs to be
devices and tools designed for the fiscal crisis situation of the industries
then only it can be ensured that the labour practices are just and sustainable.
Session V: The rise in
precarious work globally and efforts made by the ILO and global unions to
combat the challenges posed by the rise in precarious work.
Chair: Jaivir Singh, JNU.
Speaker: Jeanne Mirer, ICLR
Jeanne focussed her presentation on the recent ICLR
report published on precarious workers in the Automobile industry. She
mentioned that the report presents the detailed view of workers and trade union
leaders and also highlights how the precarious work found in the sample study
of Chennai automobile facilities violates International labour standards. The
study has made recommendation to the centre and state governments along with
the employers. The salient points raised by Jeanne in the presentation have
been recognition of all categories of workers and entitlement to all of them to
just, humane and equitable conditions. She also added that government should
strengthen laws for the protection of the worker’s rights. She finally
suggested that appropriate measures needs to be undertaken to ensure all
employers in the automobile sector should comply with the Indian Labour
Standards.
Speaker: Coen Kompier, ILO
Coen explicitly mentioned the aspects of ILO
pertaining to the contract workers. He explained the things which ILO has been
doing in the case of contract workers as well as the ones where ILO has been
missing out on. Tracing back the history, Coen highlighted that there have been
only soft recommendations in case of contract labour as far as ILO is concerned.
He added that in 1980s, employment related recommendation was made within ILO
and there were some inputs for the recognition of precariousness of the
contract workers but not a unanimous agreement on the concept of contract labour
was reached, which had very little legal value. He shared the concern that
there have been multiple issues pertaining to the abuse of contract labour
globally in terms of discrimination of payment and other entitlements. He added
that there needs to be supervision within ILO to take care of such issues.
Speaker: Surendra Nath, Amity University (former
Chief Labour Commissioner (Central))
Surendra Nath highlighted on the fact that low
productivity of the industries is a reason of precariousness. He added that the
most critical issue is the issue of equality of treatment. He further mentioned
that the meaning of the term contract worker is different in different countries. It is a big challenge to get to an unanimous
definition outside the purview of law. Doing a comparative analysis between
European Union and China, he tried to explain, wherein staffing agencies are
promoted in European Union, China has a completely different terminology for
labourers who are not on direct rolls of the company. Contract labour is also
referred to as dispatch labour and there is one more term which is outsourced
labour. Citing the example from these two
countries, he highlighted that there is a need of understanding what possibilities
could be undertaken to deal with the issues of precarious work in India
Speaker: G. Manicandan, Independent Researcher
Focussing on the problems of precarious work, Manicandan spoke that there
needs to be an in-sectorial targeting to deal with the problems of
precariousness. The Global Unions highlight the problems of precarious work.
Global framework agreement needs to be looked upon in case of the issues of
precarious workers in India. Government needs to look upon the issues of
strengthening the capacity of workforce in the country in order to mobilize the
labour for better future prospects.
Discussion and Road Ahead
Jaivir Singh (Associate
Professor, CSLG, JNU)
Rampriya Gopalakrishan
(ICLR)
Jaivir Singh and Rampriya Gopalakrishan coordinated the
discussion session which was also the last session of the conference. Due to
lack of time Singh tried to make the discussion precise and focused. He
discussed the ICLR report and commented on the problems raised by speakers
representing employees, employers, unions and government. He argued that it is essential to provide
just and humane treatment to all workers. Singh also highlighted on the
emergent need to produce more literature related to the precarious workers and
to take the cause of non-discriminatory labour practices further. RajenderDhar also supported the argument of
the need for strong action to be taken for strengthening and synchronizing
labour issues while Advocate Michael Dias considered that government needs to
set right the policy on the matter.
Glossary of
Speakers
Ramapriya Gopalakrishnan,
Lawyer, High court, Chennai (ramapriya.gopalakrishnan@gmail.com) has been associated with ILO,
especially in the area of collective bargaining. She has many publications to
her credit, besides many training and teaching programs.
Babu P Remesh, Assoc. Professor, IGNOU,
New Delhi (babu@ignou.ac.in) is an expert on livelihood issues,
informal sector, migration, industrial relations and labour history.
Sikander Kumar,
Research scholar, Department
of History, DU, N. Delhi (twohornsin@hotmail.com) works on factory regulations during
the British empire.
Rahul Roy, Film maker,
Delhi (rahulroy63@gmail.com) produces documentaries on social issues. He is
currently making a film that traces the ongoing conflict between Maruti Suzuki
management and workers in Gurgaon, Haryana.
Amarjeet
Kaur, National Secretary, AITUC,
New Delhi ( ajkaur2004@yahoo.co.in ) has been active in collective bargaining activities since
school days. She has represented Indian women movement and trade union movement
in various forums in India and abroad.
Rakhi Sehgal, NTUI (rakhi.sehgal@gmail.com) is associated with Hero Honda and Maruti workers movements through
the National Forum against contract work.
Khushi Ram and Sunil Kaushik, are Maruti contract workers of Manesar
plant, Gurgaon, Haryana. Both of them were initially dismissed along with
thousands of other workers by the Maruti management in 2012. Since then both
are actively leading workers’ movement in organizing workers support for
reinstatement and release (from Jail) of the workers.
Ramesh
Tiwari, Contract Worker, Mahindra
Tractors, Rudrapur (tiwari.ramesh2014@gmail.com) had organized Mahindra contract
workers to sign a tripartite agreement with the regular workers union (BKS) and
Mahindra management in 2013.
Usha Ramanathan,
Independent Researcher, New Delhi (urushar@gmail.com) is internationally recognized for
her work law and poverty.
Jitender Sharma,
Senior Lawyer, Supreme Court, New Delhi, has represented unions in the Supreme
court in some of the high profile labour cases in India.
Michael Dias, Senior Lawyer, Supreme Court, New
Delhi (michaeldias.delhi@gmail.com) has been representing employers in
various courts and forums, both nationally and internationally.
Ravi
Wig,
Representative ASSOCHAM
( Chairman, Wig Brothers) , Faridabad (raviwig@wigindia.net) has held top
positions in employers’ federations and represented employers in various forums, both nationally
and internationally.
Rajender
Dhar, Additional Labour
Commissioner, Delhi (dharrajender@yahoo.co.in) has been instrumental in implementing various labour
welfare programmes in Delhi.
Jeanne Mirer,
President, ICLR, New York ( Jeanne@jmirerlaw.com) is a
lawyer advocating labour laws and civil rights and is the current president of
the International association of democratic lawyers (IADL).
Surender
Nath, Professor, Amity
University, (former Secretary to GOI/ CLC(C)) (snathias@gmail.com) is an expert and an advisor on labour matters to
many reputed organizations.
Coen Kompier, Senior specialist, ILO, New Delhi (kompier@ilo.org) is an
international expert on labour standards and Collective bargaining.
G. Manicandan, Independent Researcher, New Delhi (manicandan@gmail.com) is working on the issue of trade and labour rights with
regard to bilateral and multilateral trade policies.
Jaivir Singh, Assoc.
Professor, CSLG, JNU, New Delhi (jaivirs@gmail.com) is an expert
on labour laws labour economics, property rights and workplace ethics.
