Why turning to the Left is not as bad as the Right would have us believe
Why turning to the Left is not as bad as the Right would have us believe
As today India marks the birth anniversary of Anasuya Sarabhai, the pioneer of women’s labour movement, there is still a debate on whether the newly formed Karnataka state IT and ITES trade union (KITU) is good for the industry and economy. Those wary of trade unions apprehend that "unions" will hinder growth and development, deterring investors. This, they argue, will lead to unemployment, which India, with her massive young population, can’t afford.
However, the IT & ITES industry (information technoligy and information technology-enable services), considered an engine of growth, has often been referred to as sweatshops (companies that flout labour laws), as the working conditions are sometimes appalling. Also, it is not uncommon in smaller IT/ITES companies to withhold employees’ educational certificates as ransom, should they decide to leave the company. With none to represent them, these employees suffer humiliation in silence, as there is no efficient grievance redressal mechanism.
Further, as automation is resulting in loss of jobs across the world, the future looks a little grim for many labours. With job losses being almost imminent, the anxieties are surging and their fears need to be allayed.
In its enthusiasm to bring in more investors, the government often panders to their unjust demands and the labour laws are adhered to as an exception, rather than the rule. Some may recall the incident in June this year when an employee recorded the phone call of his human resources representative, who asked him to resign by the next morning, or face termination. It is, hence, only fair that those working in the IT sector have a union, which will protect them against exploitation by their employers.
It is also a misnomer that strong labour unions are detrimental to the progress of an industry, and the economy as a whole. Of course, there should always be a middle path as the relationship between such union and the economy is more symbiotic than we realise. If the relationship has to be simplified, it will boil down to companies needing manpower and people needing jobs. It is in finding an equilibrium of pay and making working conditions better where the unions will represent the employee.
It is ironic that while the government recapitalises the banks, which were crippled by NPAs worth lakhs of crores, due to defaulting corporates, it has little to offer those employees who are most vulnerable and subject to exploitation.
A wise government will take lessons from the Great Depression of 1929. Without a wage floor, employers exploited those who were desperate for work and paid them as little as possible. This resulted in little savings and discretionary income. As a result, people could not spend much, which translated to poor demand in the market.
With poor demand, there is little room for production to expand, resulting in a slump. And with curtailed production comes poor employment opportunities, which then sustains the cycle created by the lack of a wage floor.
However, not only does India lack an organisation like the Fabian Society of the United Kingdom, which shaped their political discourse, any talk of employee rights is often viewed with suspicion. To make matters worse, over the past few years, those to the Left of the political spectrum are often derided as being against progress and development. An unmistakable culture of “McCarthyism” has set in where anyone questioning the government’s policies is dubbed as anti-national, anti-development, naxal-sympathisers, traitors, and called various other names to subvert their arguments.
True development is possible when we have enough jobs in the country to ensure our citizenry a reasonably decent standard of living with ample free time for leisure. Toiling all day, under sweatshop-like conditions, is a manifestation of slavery. The government should be more sensitive to the people and strive to ensure a better quality of life for the people. It must shun its policy of socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor.