They do not address the real labour issues; but it’s important to compensate workers who lose their jobs by going on strikes.
National Secretary, All India Trade Union Congress
Instead of paying workers off, managements should figure out the reasons for workers to resort to strikes. In doing so, they would have fewer instances of strikes
The approach to offer payoffs to unions points to the short-sightedness of companies in resolving labour issues. The recent incident at Maruti Suzuki India Limited’s (MSIL’s) Manesar plant – in which union leaders were paid money as compensation and asked to leave the company – only highlights this lack of foresight.
In my long career as a labour activist, I have seen many such incidents. These have increased in recent times in the Gurgaon-Manesar area that has witnessed tremendous industrial growth. Paying union leaders off only pushes the problem away instead of solving it. There is no doubt that after such incidences, the trade union movement in the region suffers a setback because workers lose trust in the leadership. And a new set of leaders is needed to fill the space of those who leave. Workers, nevertheless, soon manage to elect among themselves a new leader. Take the example of Maruti, within days of news appearing that the old guard of the leadership had parted ways, workers elected a new union body to take their fight forward. What is the guarantee, then, that the company will not witness any other strike? In fact, it will, if the company is not able to address the workers’ issues.
In terms of law, companies maybe able to justify to themselves that there is nothing unlawful in paying off unions. Yes, the law does not stop companies from paying union leaders a handsome price for their loyalty. But, though these multinational companies may not be violating any law, they are certainly not doing something that is in concurrence with the spirit of the law. I reckon that payoffs are nothing but another form of corruption.
More From This Section
In their effort to buy unions, most managements fail to comprehend the real reasons behind workers going on strikes. The primary reason for continuing strikes is the trust deficit between the management and workers. The management doesn’t recognise the needs of workers. In its drive to match sales targets, it forgets to factor in their interests.
Trouble in MSIL started over the issue of workers’ union. Workers wanted a union since through it they can take a collective decision on their demands. However, the company’s management refused to acknowledge their demand and instead asked the Manesar workers to be part of the union that already existed in the Gurgaon plant. Something the workers were not ready to do and so they went on a strike.
In the Indian context, the right to form a workers’ union is a basic human right that has been guaranteed to every worker. Usually, managements stand in the way of workers and prevent them from exercising this right. Most multinational companies do not want unions in their factories. But workers’ unions are a reality in India and they should know this before they invest their money in the country. Once they have invested it, they should learn to consult workers’ unions on every decision they take that has an affect on workers. Another grievance that companies have against workers’ unions is that they are political. Companies should understand that in a democracy, trade unions are bound to have a political shade.
Most managements do not understand that going on strikes is a difficult choice for workers. They use it as a last resort when all other options have been exhausted. So, instead of paying workers off, managements should figure out the reasons for workers to resort to strikes and bridge the trust gap. In doing so, companies would have fewer instances of strikes.
As told to Akshat Kaushal
Former President, Maruti Suzuki Employee Union
The reality is that we would have never won. So, is a payoff, then, not a better solution than a possible long-drawn battle in court rooms — one in which we were sure to lose?
At Maruti Suzuki India Limited (MSIL), we led a successful strike that resulted in the management agreeing to most of our demands. It is incorrect to say the management bought us or that we gave into their tactic to quell agitation. The company agreed to our main demand of reinstating workers, they also agreed to take back contract workers. For this victory, someone had to sacrifice, and 29 of my comrades and I accepted to leave Maruti. In return, the company paid us money. This is completely legitimate and we deserved the sum we received. And, of course, it offers some kind of a financial assistance to me and other workers like me.
The package that the company gave us was not unique. It was a kind of voluntary retirement scheme (VRS). It is similar to the VRS that the government gives or what you get after serving in the army. The payoff, thus, should be seen as recognition of our work. Earlier, too, when there was a strike at the Gurgaon plant, the company had offered VRS and many workers had accepted the money. Since then, the management and the union have worked together.
The 29 workers and I had serious charges against us and we were chargesheeted for them. When the strike at the Manesar plant ended, in the agreement that we signed with the company, we had consented to accept the outcome of the inquiry against us. But, we were sure that there was no way that we would be reinstated by the company.
During the inquiry, we would have been asked to defend ourselves in front of the company’s advocates who are much more educated and qualified than us. The reality is that we would have never won. So, is a payoff, then, not a better solution than a possible long-drawn battle in court rooms — one in which we were sure to lose?
Moreover, in most cases, like ours, there are family pressures too. For the last four months, I never visited my family, even when my father was very unwell. Out of the 30 who took the package from the company, there were some who had not been able to send money back home since they hadn’t received their salaries for over three months and after being suspended they were unlikely to find another job. So, when the company approached us with the offer, we realised that it was prudent to accept it rather than be part of the inquiry. It was a mutual decision, keeping in mind the ground realities.
Another reason we decided to accept the offer of the management was because there was a danger that the Maruti factory would leave Manesar and shift its base to another state. There were already reports in the paper that they were considering moving to Gujarat. One of the reasons that were being given was that the company was shifting because of our strike. If Maruti would have moved out of Haryana then that would have resulted in many people losing their jobs. Similarly workers face pressure from villagers too. Our neighbouring villages were repeatedly asking us to end the strike since they were also worried about Maruti exiting. We didn’t want to be the cause of all that.
As far as leadership is concerned, our leaving Maruti doesn’t change much. There is already a new union at the Manesar plant and it is very similar to what we had envisaged for Maruti. For my comrades and I, the only thing that mattered was that workers should be able to form their union.
Of course, payoffs cannot be a means to solve labour issues. But one cannot disregard their importance in giving workers who partake in a strike – and consequently put their jobs in jeopardy – some kind of financial security.
As told to Akshat Kaushal