Trade unions in IndiaThe trade union movement in India is over a century old. It is useful to take stockto see whether the trade unions in India are at the centre stage or in periphery. Inorder 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 ofthe total population. Of the total workforce, 91.5 percent is accounted for by theinformal sector, while the formal sector accounts for 8.5 percent. Further, onlyabut 3 Crore (30 million) (i.e. 9.5 percent of the workforce) are employed onpermanent basis, implying 90.5 percent being employed on casual basis. It hasalso been reported that by December 1991, the claimed membership of theIndian trade union movement was 3.05 Crore (30.5 million) (i.e. 9.68 percent ofthe workforce) with 82.24 percent of the trade union membership beingaccounted for by the organised sector. Thus the unorganised sector is meagrelyrepresented.The World Labour Report summarises the trade union situation in India "Indianunions are too very fragmented. In many work places several trade unionscompete for the loyalty of the same body of workers and their rivalry is usuallybitter and sometimes violent. It is difficult to say how many trade unions operateat the national level since many are not affiliated to any all- India federation. Theearly splits in Indian trade unionism tended to be on ideological grounds eachlinked to a particular political party. Much of the recent fragmentation, however,has centered on personalities and occasionally on caste or regionalconsiderations.”Apart from the low membership coverage and fragmentation of the trade unions,several studies point to a decline in membership, growing alienation betweentrade unions and membership particularly due to changing characteristics of thenew workforce and waning influence of national federations over the enterpriseunions. New pattern of unionisation points to a shift from organising workers in aregion or industry to the emergence of independent unions at the enterprise levelwhose obsession is with enterprise level concerns with no forum to link them withnational federations that could secure for them a voice at national policy makinglevels. Several studies also point to a shift in employment from the organised tothe unorganised sector through subcontracting and emergence of a typicalemployment practice where those work for the organisation do not haveemployment relationship, but a contractual relationship.Unfortunately trade unionism in India suffers from a variety of problems such aspoliticisation of the unions, multiplicity of unions, inter-union rivalry, uneconomic size, financial debility and dependence on outside leadership.

In India the Trade Union movement is generally divided on political lines. According to provisional statistics from the Ministry of Labour, trade unions had a combined membership of 24,601,589 in 2002. As of 2008, there are 11 Central Trade Union Organisations (CTUO) recognised by the Ministry of Labour.

Recognised CTUOs

Political affiliation in brackets.

All India Central Council of Trade Unions (Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) Liberation)

All India Central Council of Trade Unions, a central trade union federation in India. AICCTU is politically attached to Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) Liberation. According to provisional statistics from the Ministry of Labour, AICCTU had a membership of 639 962 in 2002.

All India Trade Union Congress (Communist Party of India)

The All India Trade Union Congress (AITUC) is the oldest trade union federations in India and one of the five largest. According to provisional statistics from the Ministry of Labour, AITUC had a membership of 2,677,979 in 2002.

It was founded on 31 October 1920 in Bombay by Lala Lajpat Rai and a few others and, until 1945 when unions became organised on party lines, it was the primary trade union organisation in India. Since then it has been associated with the Communist Party of India.

AITUC is governed by a body headed by General Secretary Gurudas Dasgupta, a politician affiliated with Communist Party of India.

AITUC is a founder member of the World Federation of Trade Unions.

All India United Trade Union Centre (Socialist Unity Centre of India (Communist))

The All India United Trade Union Centre (AIUTUC) is a Central Trade Union Organisation in India and the labour wing of the Socialist Unity Centre of India (Communist). Presently its activities are spread over 19 states. The organisation claims to have 600 affiliated unions, comprising an individual membership of over two million. It is the 6th largest trade union in India. According to provisional statistics from the Ministry of Labour, UTUC-LS had a membership of 1368535 in 2002.

Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh (Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh)

The Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh (Indian Workers' Union) is the largest central trade union organization in India. It was founded by Dattopantji Thengdi on July 23, 1955, which also happens to the birthday of Bal Gangadhar Tilak.

The BMS itself claims to have over 8.3 million members. At present it is estimated around 5860 unions are affiliated to the BMS. According to provisional statistics from the Ministry of Labour, the BMS had a membership of 6215797 in 2002.[1] It can also be noted that the BMS is not affiliated to any International Trade Union Confederation.

Girish Awasthi is the current president of the organization, and Mr.Lakshma Reddy its General Secretary.

Indian National Trade Union Congress (Indian National Congress)

Indian National Trade Union Congress (INTUC) is the trade union wing of the Indian National Congress. It was founded May 3, 1947, and is affiliated with the International Trade Union Confederation. According to provisional statistics from the Ministry of Labour, INTUC had a membership of 3892011 in 2002.

Indian National Trinamool Trade Union Congress (All India Trinamool Congress)

Indian National Trinamool Trade Union Congress is a trade union organisation of India politically associated with All India Trinamool Congress

Centre for Indian Trade Unions (Communist Party of India (Marxist))

Centre of Indian Trade Unions (Hindi: भा�रती�य ट्रे�ड यनि�य� के� न्द्र), CITU is a National level Trade Union in India politically attached to the Communist Party of India (Marxist). The Centre of Indian Trade Unions is today one of biggest assembly of workers and classes of India. It has strong unchallangeable presence in the Indian states of West Bengal, Kerala and Tripura besides a good presence in Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka. It has presence in almost all of the Indian states.

4th CITU West Bengal state conference poster

According to the provisional statistics from the Ministry of Labour, CITU had a membership of 3,222,532 in 2002.[1]

Chittabrata Majumdar was the General Secretary of CITU from 2003-2007. 12th Conference (held in January 2007) of CITU re-elected him as its General Secretary. But he died on 20 February 2007. The General Council of CITU met on 17 May 2007 and elected Mohammed Amin as its new General Secretary.

Hind Mazdoor Sabha (socialists)

The Hind Mazdoor Sabha (HMS, a Hindi name with approximate meaning 'Workers Assembly of India') is a national trade union center in India.

The HMS was founded in Howrah on December 24, 1948, by socialists, Forward Bloc followers and independent unionists. Its founders included Basawon Singh (Sinha), Ashok Mehta, R.S. Ruikar, Maniben Kara, Shibnath Banerjee, R.A. Khedgikar, T.S. Ramanujam, V.S. Mathur, G.G. Mehta. R.S. Ruikar was elected president and Ashok Mehta general secretary. HMS absorbed the Royist Indian Federation of Labour and the socialist Hind Mazdoor Panchayat. In March 1949, HMS claimed to have 380 affiliated unions with a combined membership of 618 802.

Labour Progressive Federation (Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam)

Labour Progressive Federation, trade union federation in the South Indian state of Tamil Nadu. The LPF is politically attached to Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam. According to provisional statistics from the Ministry of Labour, LPF had a membership of 611,506 in 2002.[1]

The president of LPF is C. Kuppusamy.

Telecom Employees Progressive Union is an affiliate of Labour Progressive Federation. The Union is shortly called TEPU that represents BSNL workers of India. The website of the union is tepuchq.org

SEWA

The Self-Employed Women's Association of India (SEWA) is a trade union for poor, self-employed women workers in India. SEWA was founded in 1972 by the noted Gandhian and civil rights leader Dr Ela Bhatt. SEWA's main office is located in Ahmedabad, Gujarat, and it works in several states of India. SEWA had a membership of 966,139 in the year 2008. SEWA members are women who earn a living through their own labour or small businesses. They do not obtain regular salaried employment with welfare benefits like workers in the organized sector. They are the unprotected labour force of India. Constituting 93% of the labour force, these are workers of the unorganized sector. Of the female labour force in India, more than 94% are in the unorganized sector. However their work is not counted and hence remains invisible.

Trade Union Coordination Committee (All India Forward Bloc)

Trade Union Coordination Committee, a central trade union federation in India. TUCC is politically attached to All India Forward Bloc. According to provisional statistics from the Ministry of Labour, TUCC had a membership of 732760 in 2002.[1]

The general secretary is Nripendra Kumar Mahto.

Krishi Shramik Union (Agricultural Labour Union) is affiliated to TUCC.

In Pune, the Ammunition Factory Khadki (AFK) Employees Union and the Dehu Road Ordnance Factory Employees Union are affiliated to TUCC.

United Trade Union Congress (Revolutionary Socialist Party)

United Trade Union Congress is a central trade union organisation in India. UTUC is politically tied to Revolutionary Socialist Party. Abani Roy is the general secretary of UTUC.[1] According to provisional statistics from the Ministry of Labour, UTUC had a membership of 383 946 in 2002.[2]

UTUC was founded at an All India Labour Conference in Calcutta, May 1, 1949. The founding president was professor K.T. Shah, a member of the Constituent Assembly from Bombay, and the founding general secretary was Mrinal Kanti Bose, a former AITUC president from Bengal. At the time of its foundation, Bose claimed that the organisation consisted of 236 unions with a combined membership of 347 428.[3]

Initially, UTUC profiled itself as an independent trade union centre, organising members of different leftwing factions. In 1953 the Deputy Labour Minister of India, Abid Ali, estimated the UTUC membership at 384 962. At the time UTUC had 332 affiliated unions.[4]

Other trade union centres

Akhil Bharatiya Kamgar Sena (Akhil Bharatiya Sena) All India Centre of Trade Unions (Marxist Communist Party of India (United)) All India Federation of Trade Unions (marxist-leninists) Andhra Pradesh Federation of Trade Unions (Communist Party of India (Marxist-

Leninist)) Anna Thozhil Sanga Peravai (All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam) Bharatiya Kamgar Sena (Shiv Sena)

Bharatiya Mazdoor Sabha (Provisional Central Committee, Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist))

Hind Mazdoor Kisan Panchayat (Janata Dal (United)) Indian Confederation of Labour Indian Federation of Trade Unions (Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist)

New Democracy) Kerala Trade Union Congress (Kerala Congress, KTUC(B) belongs to KC(B),

KTUC(M) belongs to KC(M), etc.) Maharashtra General Kamgar Union (Kamgar Aghadi) New Trade Union Initiative Pattali Trade Union (Pattali Makkal Katchi) Socialist Trade Union Centre (SNDP) Swatantra Thozhilali Union (Indian Union Muslim League) Telugu Nadu Trade Union Council (Telugu Desam Party) Trade Union Centre of India (Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist)) United Trade Union Congress (Bolshevik) (Revolutionary Socialist Party

(Bolshevik)) Confederation of Free Trade Unions of India (CFTUI) ( Non-political afiliated Unions

of India ) United Trade Union Congress (Marxist) (Revolutionary Socialist Party (Marxist))

GROWTH OF TRADE UNION MOVEMENT IN INDIA* The First StrikeThe origin of the movement can be traced to sporadic labour unrest dating backto 1877 when the workers at the Empress mills at Nagpur struck following awage cut. In 1884, 5000 Bombay Textile Workers submitted a petitiondemanding regular payment of wages, a weekly holiday, and a mid-day recess ofthirty minutes. It is estimated that there were 25 strikes between 1882 and 1890.These strikes were poorly organised and short lived and inevitably ended infailure. The oppression by employers was so severe that workers preferred toquit their jobs rather than go on strike. Ironically, it was to promote the interestsof British industry that the conditions of workers were improved. Concernedabout low labour costs, which gave an unfair advantage to Indian factory madegoods, the Lancashire and Manchester Chambers of Commerce agitated for aninquiry into the conditions of Indian Workers.* The First Factories ActIn 1875, the first committee appointed to inquire into the conditions of factorywork favoured legal restriction in the form of factory laws. The first Factories Actwas adopted in 1881. The Factory Commission was appointed in 1885. Theresearcher takes only one instance, the statement of a witness to the samecommission on the ginning and processing factories of Khandesh: "The same setof hands, men and women, worked continuously day and night for eightconsecutive days. Those who went away for the night returned at three in themorning to make sure of being in time when the doors opened at 4 a.m., and for18 hours' work, from 4 a.m. to 10 p.m., three or four annas was the wage. Whenthe hands are absolutely tired out new hands are entertained. Those workingthese excessive hours frequently died." There was another Factories Act in 1891,and a Royal Commission on Labour was appointed in 1892. Restrictions onhours of work and on the employment of women were the chief gains of theseinvestigations and legislation.* The First Workers' Organisation in IndiaQuite a large amount of pioneering work was done with remarkableperseverance by some eminent individuals notably by Narayan Lokhande whocan be treated as the Father, of India's Modern Trade Union Movement.4 TheBombay Millhands' Association formed in 1890 under the leadership of NarayanLokhande was the first workers' organisation in India. Essentially a welfareorganisation to advance workers' interests, the Association had no members,rules and regulations or funds. Soon a number of other organisations of a similarnature came up, the chief among them being the Kamgar Hitvardhak Sabha andSocial Service League. Organisations, which may more properly be called tradeunions, came into existence at the turn of the century, notable among them beingthe Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants of India and Burma, Unions ofPrinters in Calcutta. The first systematic attempt to form a trade union onpermanent basis was done in 1906 in the Postal Offices at Bombay andCalcutta.5 By the early years of the 20th century, strikes had become quitecommon in all major industries. Even at this time. There were visible linksbetween nationalist politics and labour movement. In 1908, mill workers inBombay went on strike for a week to protest against the conviction of thenationalist leader Bal Gangadhar Tilak on charges of sedition. There was also anoutcry against the indenture system by which labour was recruited for theplantations, leading to the abolition of the system in 1922.

* Madras Labour UnionThe Madras Labour Union was founded in 1918. Although it was primarily, anassociation of textile workers in the European owned Buckingham and CarnaticMills, it also included workers in many other trades. Thiru Vi. Ka. and B. P. Wadiathe nationalist leaders founded the Union. The monthly membership fee of theunion was one anna. The major grievances of workers at this time were theharsh treatment meted out to Indian labour by the British supervisors, and theunduly short mid-day recess. The union managed to obtain an extension of therecess from thirty \p forty minutes. It also opened a cheap grain shop and libraryfor its members and started some welfare activities.There was a major confrontation between the union and the management overthe 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 Wadiapay damages for inciting workers to breach their contract. As there was nolegislation at this time to protect the trade union, the court ruled that the MadrasLabour Union was an illegal conspiracy to hurt trading interests. An injunctionwas granted restraining the activities of the union. The suit was ultimatelywithdrawn as a result of a compromise whereby all victimised workers, with theexception of thirteen strike leaders, were reinstated and Wadia and other outsideleaders severed their link with the union.6 Against this background N.M. Joshiintroduced a bill for the rights of a Trade Union. But the then member forIndustries, Commerce and Labour himself promised to bring legislation in thematter 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 sceneand strong unions were organised specially in Port Trust, Dock staff, Bankemployees (especially Imperial Bank and currency office), Customs, Income-Tax,Ministerial staff etc.* Textile Labour AssociationAbout the same time as the Madras Labour Union was being organised,Anusuyaben Sarabhai had begun doing social work among mill workers inAhmedabad, an activity which was eventually to lead to the founding of thefamous Mazdoor Mahajan -Textile Labour Association, in 1920. Gandhi declaredthat the Textile Labour Association, Ahmedabad, was his laboratory forexperimenting with his ideas on industrial relations and a model labour union. Hewas duly satisfied with the success of the experiment and advised other tradeunions to emulate it.7There were a number of reasons for the spurt in unions in the twenties. Priceshad 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 Movementfollowing the war, which nurtured the labour movement as part of its nationalisteffort. At this time the workers had no conception of a trade union and neededthe guidance of outside leaders. The outsiders were of many kinds. Some werephilanthropists and social workers (who were politicians). They saw in labour apotential base for their political organisation. The politicians were of manypersuasions including socialists, Gandhians who emphasized social work and thevoluntary settlement of disputes, and communists.* Formation of AITUCThe year 1920 also marked the formation of the All India Trade Union Congress(AITUC). The main body of labour legislation and paradoxically enough even the

formation of the AITUC owes virtually to the activities of the International LabourOrganization (ILO). It was considered that the origin of the First World War wasin the disparities between the developed and undeveloped countries. As a resultthe treaty of Versailles established two bodies to cure this ill viz., the League ofNations and the ILO. India was recognized as a founder member of the latter.This is a tripartite body on which each member state nominates itsrepresentatives. For the foundational conference of ILO held in 1919 theGovernment of India nominated N. M. Joshi as the labour member in consultationwith the Social Service League, which was then making the greatest contributionfor the cause of workers. The ILO has a very exercising machinery to see thatvarious Governments take some actions on its conventions andrecommendations. All labour legislations in India owe a debt to theseconventions and recommendations of ILO. The formation of India's first CentralLabour Organisation was also wholly with a view to satisfy the credentialscommittee of ILO. It required that the labour member nominated by Governmentbe in consultation with the most representative organisation of country's labour.The AITUC came into existence in 1920 with the principal reason to decide thelabour representative for lLO's first annual conference. Thus the real fillip to theTrade union movement in India both in matters of legislation and formation ofCentral Labour Organisation came from an international body, viz., ILO and theGovernment's commitment to that body. Dependence on international politicalinstitution has thus been a birth malady of Indian Trade Union Movement andunfortunately it is not yet free from these defects.The AITUC claimed 64 affiliated unions with a membership of 1,40,854 in 1920Lala Lajpat Rai, the president of the Indian National Congress became the firstpresident of AITUC.In 1924 there were 167 Trade unions with a quarter million members in India.The Indian factories Act of 1922 enforced a ten-hour day.* Trade Unions ActThe Indian Trade Unions Act 1926 made it legal for any seven workers tocombine in a Trade Union. It also removed the pursuit of legitimate trade unionactivity from the purview of civil and criminal proceedings. This is still the basiclaw governing trade unions in the country.* Ideological DissensionIdeological dissension in the labour movement began within few years of theAITUC coming into being. There were three distinct ideological groups in thetrade union organisation: communists led by Shri M. N. Roy and Shri ShripadAmrut Dange, nationalists led by Shri Gandhiji and Pandit Nehru, and moderatesled by Shri N. M. Joshi and Shri V. V. Giri. There were serious differencesbetween these three groups on such major issues as affiliation to internationalbodies, the attitude to be adopted towards British rule and the nature of therelationship between trade unions and the broader political movement. Thecommunists wanted to affiliate the AITUC to such leftist internationalorganisations as the League against Imperialism and the Pan-Pacific TradeUnion Secretariat.The moderates wanted affiliation with the BLO and the International Federationof Trade Unions based in Amsterdam, The nationalists argued that affiliation withthe latter organisations would amount 10 the acceptance of perpetual dominionstatus for the country under British hegemony. Similarly, the three groups sawthe purpose of the labour movement from entirely different points of view. The

party ideology was supreme to the communists, who saw the unions only asinstruments for furthering this ideology. For the nationalists, independence wasthe ultimate goal and they expected the trade unions to make this their priority aswell. The moderates, unlike the first two, were trade unionists at heart. Theywanted to pursue trade unionism in its own right and not subjugate it completelyto broader political aims and interests.* Formation of NTUFFrom the mid-twenties of the present century onwards the communists launcheda major offensive to capture the AITUC. A part of their strategy was to start rivalunions in opposition to those dominated by the nationalists. By 1928 they hadbecome powerful enough to sponsor their own candidate for election to the officeof the President of the AITUC in opposition to the nationalist candidate Nehru.Nehru managed to win the election by a narrow margin. In the 1929 session ofthe AITUC chaired by Nehru the communists mustered enough support to carry aresolution affiliating the federation to international communist forum. Thisresolution sparked the first split in the labour movement. The moderates, whowere deeply opposed to the affiliation of the AITUC with the League againstImperialism and the Pan - Pacific Secretariat, walked out of the federation andeventually formed the National Trade Union Federation (NTUF). Within two yearsof this event the movement suffered a further split. On finding themselves aminority in the AITUC, the communists walked out of it in 1931 to form the RedTrade Union Congress. The dissociation of the communists from the AITUC was,however, short-lived. They returned to the AITUC the moment the British bannedthe Red Trade Union Congress. The British were the most favourably disposedtoward the moderate NTUF. N.M. Joshi, the moderate leader, was appointed amember of the Royal Commission.The splintering away of the NTUF had cost the AITUC thirty affiliated unions withclose on a hundred thousand members. However, the departure of thecommunists had not made much difference. In any case, the Red Trade UnionCongress quickly fell apart, and the communists returned to the AITUC. Duringthe next few years, there was reconciliation between the AITUC and NTUF aswell. The realisation dawned that the split had occurred on issues such asaffiliation with international organisations, which were of no concern to theordinary worker. By 1940 the NTUF had dissolved itself completely and mergedwith the AITUC. It was agreed that the AITUC would not affiliate itself with anyinternational organisation, and further, that political questions would be decidedonly on the basis of a two-thirds majority.On the whole the thirties were a depressing period for Indian labour. There werewidespread attempts to introduce rationalisation schemes and to effect wagecuts. The wartime inflation also took its toll. While the militant elements on thelabour movement fought for the redressal of workers grievances, the movementitself was steeped in political dissent. The popular governments voted to power inthe 1937 elections did not measure up to the workers' expectations althoughprominent labour leaders such as Shri Nanda and Shri Giri had taken over aslabour ministers. They did pass some useful legislations, however a major pieceof legislation was the Bombay Industrial Disputes Act of 1938, which attemptedto eliminate inter union rivalries by introducing a system recognising thedominant union.* Formation of Indian Federation of LabourIn 1939, when the British unilaterally involved India in World War II, there was

another wave of schisms in the labour movement. Congress governments votedto power in the 1937 elections resigned in protest against the country'sinvolvement in an alien war, and the nationalists in the AITUC were naturallyopposed to the war effort. But Roy and his supporters stood by the British. Theyfounded a rival labour movement in 1941 called the Indian Federation of Labour(IFL). Initially the communists opposed the war effort and British had in fact jailedmost of their leaders. But there was a dramatic volt face in their position in 1942when Soviet Russia joined the Allies.In the same year the nationalists launched the Quit India movement underGandhi\s leadership. The British reacted to these developments by emptying thejails of communists and filling them up with nationalists. With the nationalists injail, the AITUC was ripe for capture by the communists, and they made the mostof the opportunity. By the end of the war there were four distinct groups of tradeunionists, two in jail and two out of it Among the nationalists who were in jailthere had existed/for some time a pressure group called the congress socialists.The two groups outside jail were the Roy faction and communists who had incommon their support for the British war effort, but had maintained their separateidentities. The stage was set for a formal division of the labour movement, whichwould reflect the ideological differences.At this juncture, the Government of India became quite active on the labour frontand Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, the then Labour Member of the Executive Council toViceroy with the assistance of S.C. Joshi was engaged and exercised to takeaction on all the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Labour. At theirinstance a fact-finding committee was appointed to study the then existingsituation. During the period 1945-47 most of the present labour legislations weredrafted and the conciliation and other machinery were also well conceived. In1947 when the National Government was formed Shri S. C. Joshi. The thenChief Labour Commissioner, was entrusted with the work of implementing thevarious provisions of labour law. The whole of the present set up owes a debt tothe work that was done by him and Shri V. V. Giri, the former president of India.* Formation of INTUC, HMS and UTUCWith the formation of National Government Sardar Vallbhbhai Patel advocatedvery strongly the cause of forming a new central organisation of labour. It was hisview that the National Government must have the support of organised labourand for this purpose the AITUC cannot be relied upon since it was thriving onforeign support and used to change its colours according to the will of its foreignmasters.So, on 3rd may 1947, the Indian National Trade Union Congress (INTUC) wasformed. The number of unions represented in the inaugural meet was around200 with a total membership of over 5,75,000.n There was now no doubt that theAITUC was the labour organisation of the communists, and the INTUC the labourorganisation of the congress This was further confirmed when the congresssocialists, who had stayed behind in the AITUC, decided to walk out in 1948 andform the Hind Mazdoor Panchayat (HMP). The socialists hoped to draw into theirfold all non-congress and non-communist trade unionists. This hope was partlyrealised when the Roy faction IFL merged with the HMP to form the HindMazdoor Sabha (HMS). However, the inaugural session of the HMS witnessedyet another split in the labour movement. Revolutionary socialists and other noncommunistMarxist groups from West Bengal under the leadership of Shri Mrinal

Kanti Bose alleged that the HMS was dominated by socialists and decided toform the United Trade Union Congress (UTUC). The UTUC is formally committedto the pursuit of a classless society and non-political unionism. In practice,however, many of its members are supporters of the Revolutionary SocialistParty.By the fifties the fragmentation of the labour movement on political lines hadbecome a permanent fact. Disunity was costing the labour movement dearly.There were periodic attempts at unity, but nothing much came of them. TheINTUC was firmly opposed to any alliance with the communists. The HMS waswilling to consider a broad-based unity that would include all groups, but not forany arrangement with the AITUC alone. The major stumbling block to unity wasthe bitter experience to other groups had with the communists in the thirties.Even in specific industries such as railways where a merger between rival groupsdid take place, unity was short-lived All that could be achieved between rivaltrade unions were purely local ad-hoc arrangements.* Formation of BMSBefore the rise of Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh the labour field was dominated bypolitical unionism. The recognised Central Labour Organisations were the wingsof different political parties or groups. This often made workers the pawns in thepower-game of different parties. The conscientious workers were awaiting theadvent of a national cadre, based upon genuine trade unionism, i.e. anOrganisation of the workers/ for the workers, and by the workers. They wereequally opposed to political unionism as well as sheer economism i.e. "breadbutter unionism". They were votaries of Rashtraneetee or Lokaneetee. Theysought protection and promotion of workers' interests within the framework ofnational interests, since they were convinced that there was no incompatibilitybetween the two. They considered society as the third-and more important-partyto all industrial relations, and the consumers' interest as the nearest economicequivalent to national interest. Some of them met at Bhopal on 23 July 1955 (theTilak Jayanti Day) and announced the formation of a new NATIONAL TRADEUNION CENTER, BHARATIYA MAZDOOR SANGH.During the All India Conference at Dhanbad in 1994, BMS has given the clarioncall to all its Karyakartas to be prepared to face the THIRD WORLD WAR ANDSECOND WAR OF ECONOMIC INDEPENDENCE unleashed by the developedcountries against the developing countries. The emissaries of the developedcountries are the multinational companies who look up to India as a ideal marketto sell their outdated consumer products & technologies with a view to siphon outthe profits to their respective countries. In fact there is concerted effort to evenchange the tastes and outlook of the average Indian through satellite and junkfood channels to suit them. One might recall that the Indians were addicted to teaand coffee by the then British rulers by distributing them free of cost during1940s. Today not surprisingly India is the largest consumers of both thebeverages. 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 toadopt and adapt methods, which suits it, both culturally and economically. TodayIndia needs MODERNISATION AND NOT BLIND WESTERNISATION. BMSpublications HINDU ECONOMICS by Shri M. G. Bokare and THIRD WAY byMananeeya Dattopant Thengdi are eye-openers to the planners of the nation inthis direction. Practising SWADESHI is the only remedy to counter thisonslaught.

In 1996, in its 41st year, BMS has rededicated itself in organising theunorganised labour in the country (around 93% of the total workforce) with a viewto raise their standard of living and protect them against exploitation. Everymember of the BMS has donated minimum Rs.100 in the 40th year towards thecause.BMS therefore encourages its workers to undertake social and constructive workalong with day-to-day union work. During the Pakistan war, BMS unionssuspended their demands and engaged themselves in repairing runways anddonating blood for army men.* Aims and Objects of BMSThose who attended the convention of 23 July 1955, the formation day, had fullconfidence in the ability of our national genius to evolve new social systems andphilosophical formulae. They were determined to steer clear of both capitalism aswell as communism. They were opposed to the crude materialism of West andfelt that in the absence of Bharatiya spiritual values it was impossible to evolveany healthy social structure free from internal dissensions and strife. They hadimplicit faith in the scientific character and ultimate victory of Bharatiya SocialOrder based upon the tenets of integral humanism.The pioneers of this new movement rejected the Class Concept. They stoodneither for class-conflict nor for class-collaboration. The class concept - which isa fiction - would ultimately result in the disintegration of the nation, they declared.They however, refused to identify national interests with those of the privilegedfew in the economic, political or any other department of national life as thecriterion for determining the level of national life. The criterion for determining thelevel of national prosperity was, according to them, the living condition of thefinancially weakest constituent of the nation. To improve the lot of the underdogthey would resort to the process of collective bargaining, so far as possible, andto conflict, wherever necessary. Exploitation, injustice and inequality must be putan end. The ratio between the minimum and the maximum income in the landshould be 1: 10.For industrial workers, they demanded security of service, need based minimumwage, wage differentials on the basis of job-evaluation, right to bonus as deferredwage, full neutralisation of price-rise so as to ensure the real wage, massiveindustrial housing programmes, and integrated social security and welfareschemes.* Formation of CITU and UTUC (LS)By 1965 a splinter group of socialists headed by Shri George Fernandes formeda second Hind Mazdoor Panchayat. The split in the communist movementinevitably divided the AITUC, leading to the emergence of the Centre of IndianTrade Unions (CITU) in 1970. The UTUC was also split into two along ideologicallines, the splinter group calling itself UTUC (Lenin Sarani) i.e., UTUC (LS).Regional Trade Union Organisations affiliated to regional political parties such asthe DMK, AIADMK and MDMK in Tamilnadu and the Shiv Sena in Maharashtra,

have also emerged.

Problems of Indian trade unions fall under these headings:

1. Uneven growth: Industry-wise and Area-wise: Trade unions haven't grown in all types of industries. The only industries that have seen growth of trade unions are in the area of plantations, coal mines, food, textiles, printing press, chemicals, utility services, transport, communications and commerce. Furthermore, trade union activities are limited to large scale industry sector and manual labour, and trade unions are unevenly distributed in different states. Trade unions don't exist for a variety of small-scale businesses.

2. Small size of unions: The sizes of trade unions haven't been sufficient enough to have adequate funds and provide legal help to members. The sizes of trade unions in India have been increasing since 1930-31, but the overall membership size has been decreasing recently. Various factors contribute toward the small size of trade unions; the average size of a trade union in India is about 800. Furthermore, the percentage of women members is only 6-8%. This small size of trade unions weakens their collective bargaining power, and makes legal help inaccessible.

3. Financial Weakness: Workers don't adequately contribute toward to their trade union membership fees, except when necessary. Many workers feel the services of their trade unions are not worth paying for. The lack of necessary funds prevent trade unions from offering support for welfare activities for labour, support strikes, and hire paid staff. One reason for financial weakness in trade unions is due to the presence of rival trade unions.

4. Multiplicity of Trade Unions and rivalries: Multiple trade unions are a necessary evil. Powerful political parties have established their own trade unions with the intention of spreading their political power. This causes an inadequate and unhealthy growth of trade unions. Most trade unions have developed inter-union rivalries and groups that are in constant competition against each other. Members' energy has been wasted on deconstructive activities, and unions have become more political.

5. Leadership issues: Some unions are managed by the educated class: doctors, lawyers, politicians, etc., who have no experience or work history with the corresponding union. This type of foreign leadership creates barriers between lower-end workers and upper management, and is disadvantageous to the proper development and management of the union. Leadership of a union must only arise from within the labour class.

6. Political involvement in unions: Most unions today are run by rival political parties. These political parties have nothing constructive to offer, instead, use unions to spread their political agenda. Furthermore, decisions related to unions are made by politicians. For example, the Indian National Congress as formed the Swadeshi Movement, the Khilafat Movement, the Civil Disobedience Movement, and the Noncorporation movement.

7. Problems with recognition of trade unions: The process that leads to recognition of unions is a lengthy one. In the initial stages, union recognition is very difficult, and even discourage. There is a long list of criteria that a union must meet in order to become certified and recognized by the industry.

Opposition to trade unionsFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please improve this article if you can. The talk page may contain suggestions. (December 2006)

Opposition to trade unions comes from a variety of groups in society and there are many different types of argument on which this opposition is based.

Contents

[hide]

1 Strategic strikes and social disruption 2 Economic Effects

o 2.1 Unemployment o 2.2 Harm to Ununionized Labor o 2.3 Efficiency o 2.4 Cost-push Inflation o 2.5 Imperfect Wealth Redistribution

2.5.1 Regressivity of Wealth Redistribution 2.5.2 Management as a Proxy for Wealth

3 Challenges from affirmative action perspectives o 3.1 Racist policies in the past o 3.2 Present challenges

4 Government 5 Left critiques of trade unionism 6 See also 7 References 8 External links 9 Notes

[edit] Strategic strikes and social disruption

Unions are sometimes accused of holding society ransom by taking strike actions that result in the disruption of public services[1][2] - perhaps historically most vividly demonstrated in the British Winter of Discontent. However, where applicable, this may be logically inferred to be the very purpose of strike action per se.[3][4]

[edit] Economic Effects

[edit] Unemployment

Milton Friedman, Nobel Prize winning economist and advocate of laissez-faire capitalism, provided evidence that unionization frequently produces higher wages at the expense of fewer jobs, and that, if some industries are unionized while others are not, wages will decline in non-unionized industries.[5]

By raising the price of labour, the wage rate, above the equilibrium price, unemployment rises. This is because it is no longer worthwhile for businesses to employ those laborers whose work is worth less than the minimum wage rate set by the unions.[6] As such, Governments may seek to reduce union powers in order to reduce unemployment.

Trade unions often benefit insider workers, those having a secure job and high productivity, at the cost of outsider workers, consumers of the goods or services produced, and the shareholders of the unionized business. The ones who are likely to lose the most from a trade union are those who are unemployed or at the risk of unemployment or who are not able to get the job that they want in a particular field.[7]

Where closed shops or union shops have been established, unions can become monopolies, where the worker is not allowed to choose not to belong and the company is not allowed to hire non-union workers.[1] This can result in the same problems faced by any other monopoly. By charging higher prices than the equilibrium rate, unions promote deadweight loss.

[edit] Harm to Ununionized Labor

Advocates of unions claim that the higher wages that unions demand can be paid for through company profits. However, as Milton Friedman pointed out, profits are only very rarely high enough. 80% of national income is wages, and only about 6% is profits after tax, providing very little room for higher wages, even if profits could be totally used up. Moreover, profits are invested leading to an increase in capital: which raises the value of labor, increasing wages. If profits were totally removed, this source of wage increase would be removed.[8]

One 1951 study found that instead of harming profits, unions increase the wages of about 10 to 15% of workers by about 10 to 15% by reducing the wages of the other 85 to 90% of workers by about 4%.[9][10]

[edit] Efficiency

This section requires expansion with:examples and additional citations.

The effect of union activities to influence pricing is potentially very harmful, making the market system ineffective.[11] Because the price of labour is raised above the market rate, deadweight loss is created. Additional non-monetary benefits exacerbate the problem.

[edit] Cost-push Inflation

There can be little doubt that union activities lead to continuous and progressive inflation.[11]

F. A. Hayek, the Constitution of Liberty

By causing wage increases above the market rate, unions increase the cost to businesses, causing them to raise their prices, leading to a general increase in the price level.[11] Austrian economists such as Robert P. Murphy, however, dispute this, arguing that the increase in the cost of labour simply means that less of other goods can be bought. He writes:

If unions succeed in wage hikes, and employers raise the prices they charge consumers to maintain their own profit margins, and the supply of money remains the same, then something else has to "give." Either the prices of goods and services in nonunion sectors have to fall and offset the union sector hikes, or people's cash balances need to fall, in terms of their purchasing power.[12]

Effects partly depend on how competitive the market is. If there are many sellers, perfect knowledge, and few barriers to market entry, (competitive markets) then the firms will not be earning any supernormal profits, so the price increases will have to be paid by consumers or through reduction in output. When there are few other sellers, imperfect knowledge, and legal or resource barriers to market entry and firms making supernormal profits, the cost increases would be passed on to consumers (marginal costs will rise, increasing the price). Cost increases may or may not be fully passed on, depending on market structure.

[edit] Imperfect Wealth Redistribution

[edit] Regressivity of Wealth Redistribution

Since unionized workers' principal economic weapon is a strike, and since—in the United States at least—employers may permanently replace striking workers, the benefits of unionism increase in proportion to the difficulty and cost to an employer of finding replacement workers. As a result, skilled workers benefit substantially more in both absolute and relative terms from organizing than unskilled workers do. For example, it is much easier to replace a truck driver than to replace the quarterback of a professional football team or the writer for a hit comedy show, so the returns to a strike by professional athletes or writers are likely to be much greater than the returns to a strike by truck drivers. Accordingly, those who benefit most are highly skilled workers—individuals who would normally not be the beneficiaries of social wealth redistribution schema.

[edit] Management as a Proxy for Wealth

Unlike traditional notions of wealth redistribution, under which wealth is redistributed from the wealthy to the poor, unionizing redistributes wealth from the "management" class, as defined by the NLRA and courts, to the "employee" class. The consequence is that affluent members of the "employee" class (for example, professional athletes) may benefit from the existence of unions while poor or middle class members of the managerial class (for example, fledgling entrepreneurs) may suffer substantially from a unionized workforce. Accordingly rather than transferring wealth explicitly from the wealthy to the poor, labor law transfers wealth from the managerial class to the working class, irrespective of income.

[edit] Challenges from affirmative action perspectives

[edit] Racist policies in the past

A consequence of unions' zeal to guard their special interests is that some unions have actively lobbied for racist and anti-immigration policies. An example is the creation of the notorious Asiatic Exclusion League, which was composed mainly of the various labor unions. The Pictorial History of American Labor observes,

The early A.F. of L. did not draw the color line, but expressed an "ideal of solidarity irrespective of race." Before long, however, the feeling changed. Whether a tendency to exclude black workers from craft unions was based more on fear of competition or racial prejudice carried over from slave days, it is difficult to decide. But the developing exclusion of the Negro worker from many neighbor unions brought with it serious problems—not just for the black worker seeking job security, but for the white worker seeking the same end...

The record shows that black workers...have been used to break strikes. This availability has usually ended when the black worker has been shown that the union is open to black as well as white.[13]

However, in a study called The Black Worker, Spero and Harris observe that more strikes [in American labor history] have been broken by white workers than by black workers.[13] Most blacks were barred from membership in the AFL not because of their skin color, but because they never had a chance to learn a skill, and "most A.F. of L. unions did not admit unskilled mass-production workers."[14] While the AFL-CIO is the modern version of the AFL, it is much more open to membership by women, immigrants, and different nationalities. Other unions, such as the Industrial Workers of the World and the International Longshore and Warehouse Union, were created without regard to race from the very start.[15]

[edit] Present challenges

Trade unions have been said to still have ineffective policies on racism and sexism in the present day, such that a union is justified in not supporting a member taking action against another member. This was demonstrated by the 1987 judgement in the Weaver v NATFEH case in the UK - in which a black Muslim woman brought a complaint of workplace racist harassment against a co-trade unionist. The finding was that in the event of the union offering assistance to the complainant it would be in violation of the union’s duty to protect the tenure of the accused member and the judgement still sets the precedent for cases of this kind that union members who make complaints to the employer of racist or sexist harassment against member(s) of the same union cannot obtain union advice or assistance; this applies irrespective of the merit of the complaint.[16]

[edit] Government

Illegal union firing increased during the Reagan administration and has continued since.[17].

Specific countries, especially countries run by Communist parties, while still having unions in name, do not allow for independent trade unions, just as they rarely allow for independent businesses. These state-run trade unions do not function in the same way as independent trade unions and generally do not hold any kind of collective bargaining power, acting to ensure the smooth running of Government industry.[citation needed] Attempts to reduce the effects of trade unions may include union busting activities by private companies or state action including governments of authoritarian regimes such as in Adolf Hitler's Nazi Germany[18][19][20][21] and Burma's military dictator, Ne Win. Many democratic governments have also attempted to limit the effects of unions, although success has been mixed.

[edit] Left critiques of trade unionism

An anarcho-syndicalist flyer exhorting workers to "Give Union Bosses the Flick!".

The political left is often associated with support for trade unionism. However, some groups and individuals have taken a less positive view. In the nineteenth century, a belief in the iron law of wages led some socialists to reject trade unionism and strike action as ineffective. In this view, any increase in wages would lead manufacturers to raise prices leaving workers no better off in real terms. Karl Marx wrote a pamphlet, Wages, Price and Profit, to counter this idea, which had been put forward in the International Workingmen's Association by a follower of Robert Owen.

Some early Social Democrats were also skeptical of trade unionism. Usual criticisms were that unions split workers into sections rather than organising them as a class; that they were dominated by relatively privileged skilled workers who were mainly concerned to defend their sectional interests; and that industrial action and organisation were incapable of bringing about fundamental social change. H. M. Hyndman of the Social Democratic Federation summed up some of these views when he wrote in The Historical Basis of Socialism in England (1883):

Trade Unions ... constitute an aristocracy of labour who ... a hindrance to that complete organisation of the proletariat which alone can obtain for the workers their proper control over their own labour ... Being also ... unsectarian and unpolitical, they prevent any organised attempt being made by the workers as a class to form a definite party of their own, apart from existing factions, with a view to dominate the social conditions - a victory which ... can only be gained by resolute political action.

Hyndman went on to urge workers to devote "the Trade Union funds wasted on strikes or petty funds" instead to the building up of a strong Socialist Party on the German model. Other social democrats however were more convinced than Hyndman of the utility of Trade Union action.

Trade unionism is criticised by those of council communist and left communist tendencies.[22]

Here, trade unionism is seen as being more useful to capitalists than to workers, and as a kind of "safety-valve" that helps to keep working-class discontent within reformist channels and prevent it from evolving into revolutionary action. They think the government to be the ultimate union to where all workers in the country belong; private unions can go against that. In contrast to other left critiques of trade unionism, these tendencies do not accept that the problems they identify could be remedied by changing the structure, leadership or objectives of trade unions. Instead, they argue that trade unionism is inherently reformist and that revolutionary action is possible only if workers act outside trade unionism through workers' councils or other channels.

There is also a philosophical difference between the craft unionism of many AFL-type unions, and the industrial unionism of organizations such as the Industrial Workers of the World. Industrial unionists decry a practice that they call "union scabbing," in which craft unionists are required by the no-strike clause in their contracts to cross the picket lines of other unions.[23]

There is also the left critique of the tendencies of some labor unions to become bureaucratic and for the union leaders and staff to become detached from the needs and interests of the rank and file union members, in contrast to the practices of union democracy. The Labor Notes, in the United States, is an example of an organization that attempts to fight this bureaucratic tendency.

Disadvantages of Labor UnionsBy Jesse Lanclos, eHow Contributor

updated: August 24, 2009

I want to do this!As a member of a labor union, you cannot be fired without cause. You

have a powerful force that can back you up in cases where you feel your rights are being

violated. You have consistency in work policies. You don't have to negotiate for raises,

because they are spelled out in the union contract. Labor unions, however, also have

disadvantages to both workers and employers.

Labor Strikes

1. A powerful bargaining tool of labor unions is a labor strike. Stopping productivity can be a nightmare for employers. For workers, there is no guarantee that the strike will work to produce the benefits the union is seeking. There is no compensation for the loss of wages while a worker is on strike.

Labor unions cannot guarantee your job if you strike. Your employer is not required by law to hire you back once the strike is over. He can choose instead to retain the worker that he hired to take your place. If this happens, your only hope of retaining your position is to be called back by your employer if that position becomes vacant again. While unions are known for providing job security, you don't enjoy security in the event of a strike.

Incentives

2. In a company with union representation, promotions and pay are largely determined by seniority. Employers have few options available to motivate their workforce to work harder, produce more and suggest creative solutions to the problems faced by the business. In fact, unions may put pressure on employee whose production is more than the rest of the workforce. The union may see this as conduct detrimental to the other union members.

Dues

3. If you work at a union establishment, you are usually required to pay union dues. These dues are deducted automatically from each paycheck. Even if you choose not to be part of the labor union, you are often not exempt from paying these dues out of your wages. If you disagree with the decisions of the union, you still must pay for the representation.

Majority Rules

4. In a union workplace, the majority makes decisions for the entire workforce. If you disagree with the decision of the majority, you have no voice. Union representation can be a powerful force for change in favor of a company's employees, but that powerful force effects change in the direction the majority wants to go.

Competition

5. Unions can inhibit the ability of a company to remain competitive. Union wages are often much larger than those of non-union workers. This causes the price of goods produced by union workers to be higher than the competition. Also, productivity is not rewarded or encouraged by a union structure. Less productivity reduces the ability of a company to compete for business.