Responsibility and Management of Trade Unions In India

Every organisation has its own structure, which reflects the stated role of each member, division of tasks, the interrelationship between the people performing different tasks, and the coordination of various activities of the organisation. Trade Unionism delegation of power (the transfer of formal rights to exercise authority) moving down the hierarchy. But in the unions, the direction and movement of authority / delegation of power is in part reversed. Unlike in the business organisations, in trade unions, the formal grant of authority is from the members of the union to the leaders. Sometimes this authority is not a direct grant, but is delegated upwards. The members of the union elect committees, which in turn elect the executive. Alternatively, the members of the union may elect the office bearers of the union directly, but in addition to the office bearers, the members may elect an executive committee, which has formal authority over the office bearers. As the members grant authority to the leaders, the latter can exercise the same. But unlike in a business organisation, in a trade union, the leaders depend on the members. As such, their survival in the union (job security) depends on how they exercise the power. But looking from the practical angle, it is the leaders who embody the collective power of the union. An individual member of the union or an outsider perceives that it is only the leaders who have the ability to exercise or restrain the collective power. Such perception of the individual members prompts them to realise the importance of establishing an organisational bond with the union. Since a typical member of a union does not work in the union, but works in the firm/ factory, the organisational bond, which ties the members with the union, becomes crucial. Needless to say, supporting the union is in the best interest of the individual members.

The unions to become organisationally strong need a larger membership following. The extent of membership following of a union or the allegiance of the members to a union depends largely upon how well the union convinces the members that it satisfies not only the economic interests, but also the non-economic interests of its members. The non-economic interests of members, which the unions have to take note of, may include: the desire for self-expression (the union has to serve as the via media for communication between the employees / members and the top management), selfrespect, pride, sense of belongingness, security (protection from various types of hazards and income security such as accident injury, illness, unemployment etc.), sense of participation (the members intend to initiative taken by their leaders, have to work constantly for strengthening the organisational bond between the members and the unions.

The primary goal of a union is to promote and protect the interests of its members. As such, the unions strive to better the terms and conditions of employment and generally to advance the economic and social interests of the members so as to achieve for them a rising standard of living. They intend to formulate a stand on social and economic objectives of the community/ country as a whole, and participate in activities to make their viewpoints heard in the policy-making bodies so that the choices eventually made and the priorities adopted subserve the best interests of the workers. In order to achieve these goals, a union may choose a militant approach or it may follow the spirit of the Friendly or Uplift Unions.

In order to understand how the unions manage their internal affairs, one has to analyse, among other things, the communication within the unions, the decisionmaking process in the unions, the union elections, and the membership drive.

Communication within the union is very crucial for the effective functioning of a union. Flow of relevant information and knowledge within the union takes place from the top (leaders) to the bottom (members / rank-and-file) and the feedback, grievances/ complaints, requests etc. are communicated by the rank-and-file to the leaders. The communication may be made orally or through letters, but the former method is more common. The information may relate to a meeting, a strike, a dharana, individual members’ cases, etc. Besides the formal and direct communication between the members and the leaders, and the union and the management, informal networks, which get created spontaneously among the factions within the unions, may also serve as important channels of communication.

In any organisation, decision-making process is an important aspect of management. Ideally, a union should adopt the democratic method for taking decisions on matters concerning the union and its members. The workers (members) must be involved in the decision-making process and their views and opinions must be given due importance by the leaders while the decisions are finalised and the same are functioning is no less than that of a typical bureaucrat. Until they are elected /nominated through consensus to the post of President or General Secretary, they tend to be goody-goody to the workers, but once they occupy the key posts, they suddenly transform into typical bureaucrats.

The constitution of every registered trade union provides for union elections including the method of voting, periodicity of elections (as per the Trade Unions (Amendment) Act, 2001, the election of office bearers and Executive Committee has to be held at an interval of not more than three years), etc. The method followed for voting may be voice-vote or raising of hands or secret ballot. In unions where democratic practices are adopted, every member or every faction has an equal opportunity to contestelections. On the contrary, in unions where oligarchic tendencies prevail, the most influential individuals or a particular group of individuals virtually suppress the others from contesting the election. This latter method is not uncommon among the unions in India.

One of the main activities of a union is to constantly strive towards expanding its membership base. A union with a broad membership base is likely to be financially sound as well as organisationally strong. It may not be always possible for all the existing members of the union, assuming that they are fully satisfied with their union, to canvass for their union and motivate the non-members to join their union. However, a few members devote considerable time to convince the potential new members to join their union.

One of the crucial problems facing the Indian trade unions today is the question of trade union leadership. The control of the Indian trade unions by political parties has naturally resulted in the latter providing and controlling the top leaders not only of the national federations but also, in many cases, of individual unions whether operating at the plant or the industrial level. It is through these leaders that the Indian political parties control the policies and the day-to-day working of the trade unions. Such leaders have come to be known as “outsiders”. Besides the politicians, social workers, lawyers and doctors have also been providing leadership to the Indian trade unions. The trade union law provides for the presence of outsiders as office bearers (the Trade Unions Act, 1926 stipulating that the outsiders may

bearers or 5, whichever is less generally, and 50 per cent in the unorganised sector). But this is not the main reason for their presence. Workers felt the need for them a hundred years ago, and they still do, although for different reasons. In the early years outsiders were needed because the illiterate and ignorant workers, drawn largely from socially disprivileged groups, were too fearful of their employers. That can hardly be said to be the reason today, at least not in medium and large enterprises in the organised / formal sector. The social background of the workers has changed dramatically and organising a trade union is no longer the seditious activity it was once thought to be. And yet the institution of outside leadership is alive and kicking.

Non-traditional constituents include: (i) new entrants at the higher end of labour markets, including professional and white-collar workers; (ii) casual workers, who are either part-time or temporary; (iii) home-based workers and those in the informal sector ; and (iv) women workers. The informal sector has grown in India substantially with an increasing share of new jobs either being created in , or outsourced to, the informal sector. The concentration of a large number of workers at the lower end of the labour market in the country, especially in service industries, provides unions with a unique opportunity to build a new constituency i.e., new membership base. In recent years, some unions have taken initiatives to organise new members.

Trade unions as representatives of a very organised and articulate group in our society have a mandate to promote human rights. To achieve this, unions have to move beyond their customary role of defending economic and social rights. Union priorities in this field include appropriate human rights programmes in collaboration with other actors in the society, including gender groups, cooperatives, community associations, human rights bodies, consumers and environmental groups. Some trade unions may already have been engaged in social service and developmental activities. But the scale and history of such activities being limited and recent, there is a need to step up attention and action in this direction.

Trade unions are unique organisations whose role is variously interpreted and understood by different against exploitation and arbitrariness to ensure fairness and equity in employment contexts. In the wake of a long history of union movement and accumulated benefits under collective agreements, a plethora of legislations and industrial jurisprudence, growing literacy and awareness among the employees and the spread of a variety of social institutions including consumer and public interest groups the protective role must have undergone, a qualitative change.It can be said that the protective role of trade unions remains in form, but varies in substance. There is a considerable debate on the purposes and role of trade unions. The predominant view, however, is that the concerns of trade unions extend beyond 'bread and butter' issues. Trade unions through industrial action (such as protests and strikes) and political action (influencing Government policy) establish minimum economic and legal conditions and restrain abuse of labour wherever the labour is organised. Trade unions are also seen as moral institutions, which will uplift the weak and downtrodden and render them the place, the dignity and justice they deserve.

Public opinion is hostile to trade unions in most countries. The public is not against unionism in principle. It is against the way unions and union leaders function. The public image of union leaders is that they are autocratic, corrupt and indifferent to the public interest 'Too much power, too little morality' sums up the publics' assessment of unions There have been many opinion surveys especially in the United States, which bring out the poor public image of trade unions. In surveys which rank the confidence of the American public in fourteen institutions (as for example the army, church, supreme court, stock market, legal profession, industrialists, newspapers etc.) trade unions have been consistently placed at the bottom of the list. There is a serious decline in union membership in most industrialized nations. There are two possible ways of looking at union membership figures. The first method is to simply add up all union members in a factory, office or country. This gives overall membership position. In the second method, the density of membership is calculated. Density is the percentage of union members in relation to total employment, for example, if unions have 50 members in a factory employing 100, the density is 50 percent. When the reference is to entire country, density is measured by comparing union members against total employment in all sectors. Density is generally accepted as a better indicator because it shows not Membership has dropped sharply in many European countries. In France, which is the worst hit, the density of union membership is now estimated to be a miserable 10 percent. In Holland, which is also badly affected, density is estimated at around 25 percent. In England the density of union membership is 44 percent. The picture is not very different outside Europe. In the United States, density has dropped to 16 percent. In Japan, it has dropped to 25 percent. In India, union density has been of a very low order i.e., 10 percent. There are, however, some exceptions to this depressing trend. Trade union density in Sweden, the highest in the world, stands at an extremely impressive 91 percent the working population. Trade unions in Sweden are most respected. They seek social, political and economic democracy. They participate at all levels of decision-making, national and local, and share in the administration of laws. The density in Denmark is 82 percent, and in Norway 63 percent, both very high by world standards.

The trade union movement in India is over a century old. It is useful to take stock to see whether the trade unions in India are at the centre stage or in periphery. In order to do that, one may peruse the following relevant, though selective, statistics. The Indian workforce 31.479 Crore (314.79 million) constitutes 37.3 percent of the total population. Of the total workforce, 91.5 percent is accounted for by the informal sector, while the formal sector accounts for 8.5 percent. Further, only about 3 Crore (30 million) (i.e. 9.5 percent of the workforce) are employed on permanent basis, implying 90.5 percent being employed on casual basis. It has also been reported that by December 1991, the claimed membership of the Indian trade union movement was 3.05 Crore (30.5 million) (i.e. 9.68 percent of the workforce) with 82.24 percent of the trade union membership being accounted for by the organised sector. Thus the unorganised sector is meagrely represented. The World Labour Report summarises the trade union situation in India "Indian unions are too very fragmented. In many work places several trade unions compete for the loyalty of the same body of workers and their rivalry is usually bitter and sometimes violent. It is difficult to say how many trade unions operate at the national level since many are not affiliated to any all- India federation. The early splits in Indian trade unionism tended to be on ideological grounds each linked to a particular political party. Much of the recent fragmentation, however, has centered on personalities and occasionally on caste or regional considerations.” Apart from the low membership coverage and fragmentation of the trade unions, several studies point to a decline in membership, growing alienation enterprise unions. New pattern of unionisation points to a shift from organising workers in a region or industry to the emergence of independent unions at the enterprise level whose obsession is with enterprise level concerns with no forum to link them with national federations that could secure for them a voice at national policy making levels. Several studies also point to a shift in employment from the organised to the unorganised sector through subcontracting and emergence of a typical employment practice where those work for the organisation do not have employment relationship, but a contractual relationship. Unfortunately trade unionism in India suffers from a variety of problems such as politicisation of the unions, multiplicity of unions, inter-union rivalry, uneconomic size, financial debility and dependence on outside leadership.

The origin of the movement can be traced to sporadic labour unrest dating back to 1877 when the workers at the Empress mills at Nagpur struck following a wage cut. In 1884, 5000 Bombay Textile Workers submitted a petition demanding regular payment of wages, a weekly holiday, and a mid-day recess of thirty minutes. It is estimated that there were 25 strikes between 1882 and 1890. These strikes were poorly organised and short lived and inevitably ended in failure. The oppression by employers was so severe that workers preferred to quit their jobs rather than go on strike. Ironically, it was to promote the interests of British industry that the conditions of workers were improved. Concerned about low labour costs, which gave an unfair advantage to Indian factory made goods, the Lancashire and Manchester Chambers of Commerce agitated for an inquiry into the conditions of Indian Workers.

In 1875, the first committee appointed to inquire into the conditions of factory work favoured legal restriction in the form of factory laws. The first Factories Act was adopted in 1881. The Factory Commission was appointed in 1885. The researcher takes only one instance, the statement of a witness to the same commission on the ginning and processing factories of Khandesh: "The same set of hands, men and women, worked continuously day and night for eight consecutive days. Those who went away for the night returned at three in the morning to make sure of being in time when the doors opened at 4 a.m., and for 18 hours' work, from 4 a.m. to 10 p.m., three or four annas was the wage. When the hands are absolutely tired out new hands are entertained. Those working

Restrictions on hours of work and on the employment of women were the chief gains of these investigations and legislation.

Quite a large amount of pioneering work was done with remarkable perseverance by some eminent individuals notably by Narayan Lokhande who can be treated as the Father, of India's Modern Trade Union Movement.4 The Bombay Millhands' Association formed in 1890 under the leadership of Narayan Lokhande was the first workers' organisation in India. Essentially a welfare organisation to advance workers' interests, the Association had no members, rules and regulations or funds. Soon a number of other organisations of a similar nature came up, the chief among them being the Kamgar Hitvardhak Sabha and Social Service League. Organisations, which may more properly be called trade unions, came into existence at the turn of the century, notable among them being the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants of India and Burma, Unions of Printers in Calcutta. The first systematic attempt to form a trade union on permanent basis was done in 1906 in the Postal Offices at Bombay and Calcutta.5 By the early years of the 20th century, strikes had become quite common in all major industries. Even at this time. There were visible links between nationalist politics and labour movement. In 1908, mill workers in Bombay went on strike for a week to protest against the conviction of the nationalist leader Bal Gangadhar Tilak on charges of sedition. There was also an outcry against the indenture system by which labour was recruited for the plantations, leading to the abolition of the system in 1922.

The Madras Labour Union was founded in 1918. Although it was primarily, an association of textile workers in the European owned Buckingham and Carnatic Mills, it also included workers in many other trades. Thiru Vi. Ka. and B. P. Wadia the nationalist leaders founded the Union. The monthly membership fee of the union was one anna. The major grievances of workers at this time were the harsh treatment meted out to Indian labour by the British supervisors, and the unduly short mid-day recess. The union managed to obtain an extension of the recess from thirty \p forty minutes. It also opened a cheap grain shop and library for its members and started some welfare activities. There was a major confrontation between the union and the management over the demand for a wage increase, which eventually led to a strike and lockout. The management filed a civil suit in the Madras High Court claiming that Wadia pay damages for inciting illegal conspiracy to hurt trading interests. An injunction was granted restraining the activities of the union. The suit was ultimately withdrawn as a result of a compromise whereby all victimised workers, with the exception of thirteen strike leaders, were reinstated and Wadia and other outside leaders severed their link with the union.6 Against this background N.M. Joshi introduced a bill for the rights of a Trade Union. But the then member for Industries, Commerce and Labour himself promised to bring legislation in the matter and the Trade Union Act of 1926 was enacted. By this time many active trade union leaders notably N. M. Joshi, Zabwalla, Solicitor Jinwalla, S. C. Joshi, V. G. Dalvi and Dr. Baptista, came on the scene and strong unions were organised specially in Port Trust, Dock staff, Bank employees (especially Imperial Bank and currency office), Customs, Income-Tax, Ministerial staff etc.

About the same time as the Madras Labour Union was being organised, Anusuyaben Sarabhai had begun doing social work among mill workers in Ahmedabad, an activity which was eventually to lead to the founding of the famous Mazdoor Mahajan -Textile Labour Association, in 1920. Gandhi declared that the Textile Labour Association, Ahmedabad, was his laboratory for experimenting with his ideas on industrial relations and a model labour union. He was duly satisfied with the success of the experiment and advised other trade unions to emulate it.7 There were a number of reasons for the spurt in unions in the twenties. Prices had soared following World War I, and wages had not kept pace with inflation. The other major factor was the growth of the nationalist Home Rule Movement following the war, which nurtured the labour movement as part of its nationalist effort. At this time the workers had no conception of a trade union and needed the guidance of outside leaders. The outsiders were of many kinds. Some were philanthropists and social workers (who were politicians). They saw in labour a potential base for their political organisation. The politicians were of many persuasions including socialists, Gandhians who emphasized social work and the voluntary settlement of disputes, and communists.

Before the rise of Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh the labour field was dominated by political unionism. The recognised Central Labour Organisations were the wings of different political parties or groups. This often made workers the pawns in the power-game of workers/ for the workers, and by the workers. They were equally opposed to political unionism as well as sheer economism i.e. "bread butter unionism". They were votaries of Rashtraneetee or Lokaneetee. They sought protection and promotion of workers' interests within the framework of national interests, since they were convinced that there was no incompatibility between the two. They considered society as the third-and more important-party to all industrial relations, and the consumers' interest as the nearest economic equivalent to national interest. Some of them met at Bhopal on 23 July 1955. The emissaries of the developed countries are the multinational companies who look up to India as a ideal market to sell their outdated consumer products & technologies with a view to siphon out the profits to their respective countries. In fact there is concerted effort to even change the tastes and outlook of the average Indian through satellite and junk food channels to suit them. One might recall that the Indians were addicted to tea and coffee by the then British rulers by distributing them free of cost during 1940s. Today not surprisingly India is the largest consumers of both the beverages. Now in this decade the soft drinks and potato chips rule the roost. BMS has made it adequately clear that every country that has to develop has to adopt and adapt methods, which suits it, both culturally and economically. In 1996, in its 41st year, BMS has rededicated itself in organising the unorganised labour in the country (around 93% of the total workforce) with a view to raise their standard of living and protect them against exploitation. Every member of the BMS has donated minimum Rs.100 in the 40th year towards the cause. BMS therefore encourages its workers to undertake social and constructive work along with day-to-day union work. During the Pakistan war, BMS unions suspended their demands and engaged themselves in repairing runways and donating blood for army men.

Verified membership of Central Trade Union Organisations as supplied by the Chief Labour Commissioner to the CTUOs for the cutoff date 31-12-2014:

the formation day, had full confidence in the ability of our national genius to evolve new social systems and philosophical formulae. They were determined to steer clear of both capitalism as well as communism. They were opposed to the crude materialism of West and felt that in the absence of Bharatiya spiritual values it was impossible to evolve any healthy social structure free from internal dissensions and strife. They had implicit faith in the scientific character and ultimate victory of Bharatiya Social Order based upon the tenets of integral humanism. The pioneers of this new movement rejected the Class Concept. They stood neither for class-conflict nor for class-collaboration. The class concept - which is a fiction - would ultimately result in the disintegration of the nation, they declared. They however, refused to identify national interests with those of the privileged few in the economic, political or any other department of national life as the criterion for determining the level of national life. The criterion for determining the level of national prosperity was, according to them, the living condition of the financially weakest constituent of the nation. To improve the lot of the underdog they would resort to the process of collective bargaining, so far as possible, and to conflict, wherever necessary. Exploitation, injustice and inequality must be put an end. The ratio between the minimum and the maximum income in the land should be 1: 10. For industrial workers, they demanded security of service, need based minimum wage, wage differentials on the basis of job-evaluation, right to bonus as deferred wage, full neutralisation of price-rise so as to ensure the real wage, massive industrial housing programmes, and integrated social security and welfare schemes.

By 1965 a splinter group of socialists headed by Shri George Fernandes formed a second Hind Mazdoor Panchayat. The split in the communist movement inevitably divided the AITUC, leading to the emergence of the Centre of Indian Trade Unions (CITU) in 1970. The UTUC was also split into two along ideological lines, the splinter group calling itself UTUC (Lenin Sarani) i.e., UTUC (LS). Regional Trade Union Organisations affiliated to regional political parties such as the DMK, AIADMK and MDMK in Tamilnadu and the Shiv Sena in Maharashtra, have also emerged.

At present there are twelve CTUOs in India as follows:  Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh (BMS)

• Hind Mazdoor Kisan Panchayat (HMKP)

• Hind Mazdoor Sabha (HMS)

• Indian Federation of Free Trade Unions (IFFTU)

• Indian National Trade Union Congress (INTUC)

• National Front of Indian Trade Unions (NFITU)

• National Labour Organisation (NLO)

• Trade Unions Co-ordination Centre (TUCC)

• United Trade Union Congress (UTUC) and

• United Trade Union Congress - Lenin Sarani (UTUC - LS)

A survey of the development of trade unions in India shows that most of the unions are affiliated with either of the four central trade union federations, viz., Indian National Trade Union Congress, All India Trade Union Congress, Hind Mazdoor Sabha and United Trade Union Congress. Besides these some of the trade unions are affiiated with seven other trade union federations, viz., Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh, Hind Mazdoor Panchayat, Centre of Indian Trade Union, National Federation of Independent Trade Unions, National Labour Organization, Trade Union Coordination Committee and United Trade Union Congress. These trade union organizations have been patronized by different political parties in the country. Further, a survey of the trade unions in India reveals that over the years the trade union movement has undergone significant development. Both workers and non-workers have been involved. The beginnings of the movement were the outcome of the efforts made by certain social reformers and labour leaders. “The early... trade union movement (was) often full of difficulties. Strike committees calling themselves trade unions and demanding the privileges of trade unions, without any means of discharging the responsibilities thereof. The position has considerably changed since then. The number of unions has gone up and membership and funds of trade unions have increased.

Weekly, February 3-10:467-80.

• Bardhan, Pranab (2011), "The Political Economy of Reforms in India", in Rakesh Mohan (ed.), Facets of the Indian Economy, Oxford University Press, New Delhi.

• Bhattacherjee, Debashish (2001), "The 'New Left', Globalisation and Trade Unions in West Bengal: What is to be Done?", Indian Journal of Labour Economics, 44 (3):447-57.

• Davala, Sarath (2014), Enterprise Unionism in India, Friedrich Ebert Stiftung (FES), New Delhi.

• Deshpande Sudha, Standing, Guy & Deshpande, Lalit (1998), Labour Flexibility in a Third World Metropolis, Indian Society of Labour Economics and Commonwealth Publishers, New Delhi.

• Deshpande, L.K., Sharma, Alakh N, Karan, Anup K & Sarkar, Sandip (2012), Liberalization and Labour: Labour Flexibility in Indian Manufacturing, Institute for Human Development, New Delhi.

• John, J. (2007), "Overall Increase and Sectoral Setbacks: Lessons from Trade Union Verification 2002 Data (Provisional)", Labour File, Jan-April:13-25.

• Shyam Sundar, K.R. (2011), Impact of Labour Regulation on Growth, Investment, and Employment: A Study of Maharashtra, In stitute for Studies for Industrial Development (ISID), European Union (EU), International Institute for Labour Studies (IILS), and Bookwell, New Delhi.

• Shyam Sundar, K.R. (2010), Labour Reforms and Decent Work in India: A Study of Labour Inspection in India, Bookwell, New Delhi.

 Venkata Ratnam, C.S. (2003), Negotiated Change: Collective Bargaining, Liberalization and Restructuring in India, Response Books, New Delhi.