08 June 2010

Strikes and protest: changing perceptions

Trade unionism and organized protests in recent times have become a pariah, an object of disparagement. In the media and middle-class consciousness, it’s begun to symbolize an impediment to progress. The roots to these perceptions lie in the disenchantment with the public sector industry, which is now deemed to be an inefficient burden on the country’s exchequer. The strikes in the textile mills of Mumbai, the fall from grace of the state of West Bengal from the map of industrialization and development, the corruption and inefficiencies of government undertakings are all somehow attributed to trade unionism. And this isn’t necessarily untrue. The PSU and government employees who could ostensibly get away with anything and the bureaucracy who plague our government machinery have survived without much effort largely because of the unions. We have iron ore mines running for decades when the entire resources have been depleted, just so that the employees’ salaries can be paid, we have sick units dragging on without any hope of a turnaround just because the unions won’t allow their closure; and we have the all-too-familiar blackmails by providers of essential services to have their just or unjust demands met. Lately, there have been voices which have called for ruthless handling of any voice of dissent. Aided by the media which panders to the views of a minority which unfailingly opposes any hindrance to their comfortable lives, the opponents of public protests are having a field day. In the absence of any support, unions and protestors have to face the brunt of opposition from all quarters.


These tendencies are now leading to a situation wherein even the legitimate demands of protestors are quashed without any opposition. A recent instance was the way in which the strike called by the employee unions of Air India was dealt with. Not many are aware of what prompted the strike in the first place. An extremely biased and melodramatic reporting focused only on the trouble faced by the commuters, and the contention that a strike just after a major disaster involving the national was unjustified. The fall-out was the termination of striking employees and derecognition of Air India employee unions. The rhetoric of the management and the aviation ministry was facilitated by a sympathetic media and its consumers who were not willing to compromise on their convenience at any cost. Nobody really cared about the standpoint of the striking employees, there was unbridled rejoicing when the strike was forcibly brought down, considered to be a vindication of the media and airline consumers’ opinions.

What actually happened, what prompted the Air India employees to go on a strike a day after one of the biggest tragedies visited in the history of Indian passenger aviation? While trouble had been brewing for long regarding non-payment of salaries, which in itself is more than a good reason for calling off work, the flash-point was a gag order implemented by Air India management, restraining its employees from making any unauthorized statements regarding the carrier. It went on to suspend an employee who had raised a question about the certification process of an aircraft’s flight-worthiness. Apparently, the ill-fated Mangalore aircraft was cleared for flight by a team of engineers from Kingfisher Airlines. The suspended employee had questioned the credentials and qualification of the team and the very practice of a private body performing such a sensitive task. Even though the crash did not occur because of any aircraft snag, the point raised was quite valid. As regards non-payment of salaries, it would be insane to expect someone to carry on working without getting the wages on time.

In spite of all these valid arguments, the employees’ strike was met with impatience and high-handedness, and the calling off termed as a victory for the airline management. In truth, it was an unjust repression, which shows the changing face of India’s work ethics.

No comments: