By Avner Pariat
One of the obsessions that many well-placed, comfortable, fully employed people have in this town revolves around the issue of Labour’s rights. And by this I mean that they love to decry and condemn Labour’s demands and aspirations as being unrealistic, and worse, exploitative. Calls for a fairer wage are immediately scorned, sick leave is seen as impossible for poor people, basic protections are not for basic wage earners.
These people seem to forget that they are also part of this pool: they provide labour albeit better paid and skilled. They don’t seem to understand that supporting the demands for a better system of employment is good for everyone including themselves. That being said maybe it is highly unlikely that a person from an Indian middle-class background would feel empathy for a low income hawker or domestic labourer.
On one hand though, they might share my view that it is not fair to equate the rights of a daily wage earner with that of a film maker. Their burdens are vastly different, and so is their income, the former deserves much more attention and protection. We must not kid ourselves into a false sense of solidarity without acknowledging the complications that are there. However, what I do believe in is very simple: that the more fortunate should support and foster the chances of those less fortunate than themselves. And I do not mean this in any way to imply “charity,” which I dislike. That sense of social justice is something which unites me with other people all over the state, country and world who are endeavouring to fight for a better tomorrow. Everyone must get a chance at this. Then again maybe this way of thinking is out-dated and a bit silly.
Jenniefer Dkhar recently stated how employers, like herself, face hardships when it came to her encounters with domestic help. Many of the grievances she expressed are commonplace and she articulated them plainly. However they are slightly misinformed and indicated a misunderstanding about the role of collective bargaining power. Labour is not here to replicate the exploitation it has endured but to safeguard against it. As I mentioned earlier, many people who enjoy the benefits of casual leave, travel allowance, reimbursement, and a large steady payslip might not understand why people need to make 5000 rupees per month but I assure you that one cannot live on such an amount. Yes, there can be scope for antagonism between help and employer. But the role of unionising is not to disrupt but to create a system of balance which, sadly, does not exist at the moment.
There is no denying the rampant abuse that the domestic helpers and others within the labour force have endured over the years. Many continue to roil in the pits of poverty with no way out. Associations/unions can help redress that problem. And employers need not be apart from this change, but an integral part of it. I don’t know why we must always follow the idea and model that Management MUST fight Labour. In this state and in our particular milieu I do not see why we must perform this age-old battle. In Germany, union representatives are required to be part of board meetings. This is probably one of the main reasons why German industry is still (compared to the rest of Europe) productive and efficient. We need to talk to each other not whisper bad things about one another. What is the point of speculating? The government keeps asking militants to “come to the table” but continually ignores legitimate and legal demands!
Some might feel that empowering Labour in this way will result in rampant misuse of power from their end. But let us not forget that unions have responsibilities to their members AND society at large. Unions can help ensure that dereliction of duties is thwarted. When one joins a union or association, there are certain rules that govern how the members should behave. Working people are not going to suddenly inflate their expectations unreasonably. The system they follow is actually driven by a market that they respond to and which adjusts itself according to demand and ability to purchase their services. Right now many helpers and workers might indeed abscond from work (I can attest to this personally) and not be held accountable but a union can ensure that they are penalised for repeated offences. A proper system of unions can help ensure the smooth and effective dissemination of services. It is not against negotiations and finding a middle-ground. Right now, many workers are left to fend for themselves and that is why there is so much wastage in terms of time and low efficacy. Low wages might seem good to the employer but they don’t guarantee longevity of service and a quality of work. This is one of the main reasons for the lackadaisical attitude many working people are wont to show. After all would any UGC sanctioned teachers or professors do any of their work if they did not obtain HRA, HAKKA (or was it HASA) etc and their pay did not commensurate with the times? Why do we continually deny these others who make next to nothing, a slight increment in the standard of their living?
It is just chaos that exists here currently and we as the end-user/consumer lose out a lot because of this. The government must, as Dkhar, observes listen to the “other side” as well and I can assure you Labour is sensitive to this side. If that were not the case then those unpaid security guards would have all destroyed their places of work a long time ago, the Nazareth union members would have turned away the sick and ailing, MeECL would have shut down. No! In spite of the low and inhuman salaries, these people still perform their duties to the ‘T.’ I have an immense respect for them.
