The Supreme Court verdict declar-ing strikes as illegal is a water shed in many ways. It has effectively put paid the pompous plans of the most pampered proletariat, namely the Government staff, whose pavlovian penchant for lapsing into strikes at the drop of a hat, and not as a last resort as they claim, has attained notoriety of sorts. The apex court’s observations also come as a whiff of fresh air to the harried citizens of the country.
One can be certain that the larger population will henceforth be insulated from the unending greed of a small bunch of organised individuals who are where they are owing to no legitimate effort but sheer luck.
Indeed, it would take herculean efforts on the part of the latter to even utter the word strike any more.
Some of the observations of the Supreme Court makes for happy reading. But what takes the cake is this remark: ‘…And in a society where there was large-scale unemployment and a number of qualified persons were eagerly waiting for employment in Government departments or in public sector undertakings, strikes could not be justified on any equitable ground’. The rush and serpentine queues at the government offices for the temporary recruitment drive was proof enough of the hapless unemployment scenario in the country.
Now, if we may ask, what special penance have the government staff done to be ensconced in perches of cosy comfort and being entitled to secure lives that those other unfortunates are incapable of? In that light, does not the government staff’s intransigence seem presumptuous and perverted? Of course, the past one month would have taught them what it means to lose job security, something they had taken for granted all along. That was the foundation of their hubris and that has now been shaken.
The chagrin of the unions and the Left parties is understandable faced as they are with an existential crisis. Indeed it would be difficult for them to countenance their original script going awry. The State was supposed to wither away. But quite climactically, while the State has stood firm, it is actually the unions that are now withering away, after of course duly banging their heavy heads against it. They now stand humbled, in total ruins. But they have only themselves to blame for their plight.
They pushed their lucks a bit too much with scant regard for the state of the economy which is bleeding by just paying them and also by taking public sympathy for granted when in fact the overwhelming opinion was to put them in place. The unions have now promptly returned to base with mud on their faces.
The SC has in reality struck at the very essence of their existence. Collective bargaining and mobilisation have been the twin pillars of the union movement. The unions, in their self-appointed role of sole spokespersons for the proletariat, have always been bluffing around that they could elicit any concession from governments, which till June 30, 2003, have only displayed weakness. This bluff was the basis for them to mobilise the crowds. Not that it needed much effort to rally them given the greed of the government staff and their organised nature.
It is no secret that the moment a staff gets the appointment order, he is also made a member of the reigning union. In fact, in some PSUs there is even the disturbing practice of collecting one’s appointment order itself from the union office! Such is the clout of these unions with the staff. While collective bargaining was actually an euphemism for collective blackmail, mobilisation invariably ended in immobilising governance and normal life. And this they would call success, a sure sign of sadism. But be it collective bargaining or mobilisation, the clinching factor has always been their ability to strike work.
This weapon has now been effectively blunted by the SC. It remains to be seen of what use the unions could be to their benefactors now. The mass of government staff that offered a wholesale membership for the unions and unionised political outfits like the left out leftists are now a disenchanted lot, left high and dry. Little wonder the reds are complaining, for the captains of labour may now have to address empty halls.
But looking at things from a larger perspective too, there was really no necessity for the unionisation of the government staff. At least, not for pressing their financial demands. The need for unions was deemed justified in those euphoric socialistic times of the past owing to perceived exploitation and oppression by private managements.
But can the same logic hold good where the employer is the government, which in turn represents the people? Are the unionists and their political backers arguing that the government, touted as a model employer, is exploiting its staff by offering poor pay and poorer working conditions? Does it not sound ludicrous? Rather, if at all there is any exploitation it is by the unionised staff with the victims being the employer himself, here, the hapless tax payer!
Now, have the unions, which endlessly harangue on rights, imaginary ones at that as it has turned out now, ever talked about the duties, which are real? Which union leader or leftist politician talks of efficiency, productivity, responsibility, accountability, discipline etc etc? Has there been a single case where an errant employee been pulled up by a union? On the contrary they would lapse into a flash strike or sit-in protest or whatever if a senior offer were to chide, not even penalise, a staff for shoddy work or behaviour.
They are immune to all things that matter to self-respecting toilers, while they court everything that indulge their laziness and greed. That in short, has been the culture promoted by the unions.
The velvet gloves should have been shelved long back. But better late than never. Rather it is time for the iron fist to press home on the rare opportuniy afforded by the SC.
e-mail the writer at [email protected]