Less than secure

Trade unions are up in arms against a proposed social security Bill for workers in the unorganised sector.

On May 24, the Union Cabinet gave its nod to certain social security measures for the 36.9 crore workers in the unorganised sector in India, who constitute about 93 per cent of the workforce in the country. Ideally trade unions should have welcomed such a move, but they are up in arms against it.

The trade unions say the Cabinet proposals are far from ideal. The National Commission for Enterprises in the Unorganised Sector (NCEUS), set up by the government in September 2004 following the commitments made by the United Progressive Alliance in the National Common Minimum Programme (NCMP), had prepared two Bills dealing with workers in the unorganised sector. In one stroke, the Cabinet set aside these two draft Bills and ignored the long-standing demand of the trade unions for two separate pieces of legislation, one for unorganised workers in the agricultural sector and another for those in the manufacturing, mining and service sectors. Experts in the NCEUS, too, are apparently unhappy with the Cabinet decision.

The Cabinet has decided to introduce welfare schemes for workers in the unorganised sector in a phased manner. It has proposed the constitution of a National Advisory Board whose mandate will be to design welfare schemes from time to time, recommend such schemes to the government, and monitor the implementation of all notified schemes. The schemes notified by the Centre will contain provisions for life and disability cover, health benefits and old-age protection. Every person who is above 18 and has made a self-declaration about being a worker in the unorganised sector will be registered and issued an identity card. The Cabinet has decided to introduce a Bill to set up the National Advisory Board. The Bill will provide for the constitution of State Level Advisory Boards.

On the face of it, the proposals seem fair but they negate fundamental issues raised by the trade unions and activists on workers' rights. Social Security Now, a consortium of 500 civil society organisations, called the Cabinet move nothing less than a deception perpetrated on 40 crore workers in the unorganised sector and said the announcement of welfare schemes was a mockery of all representative and democratic processes. It said the government move had downgraded the status of the National Advisory Board and reduced social security to arbitrary welfare schemes.

In a separate statement, seven central trade union organisations (CTUO) - Centre of Indian Trade Unions, All India Trade Union Congress, Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh, Hind Mazdoor Sabha, Indian National Trade Union Congress, United Trade Union Congress (LS) and United Trade Union Congress - slammed the Cabinet decision as "arbitrary" and reminded the government that the issue of a separate comprehensive piece of legislation for workers in the unorganised sector had been a subject of tripartite discussions.

The CTUO said the Ministry of Labour and Employment circulated several drafts, including one this year, of the Unorganised Sector Workers' Social Security Bill, and the National Advisory Council presented its views on the Bill. Successive sessions of the Indian Labour Conference endorsed the position of the trade unions on the draft Bills prepared by the NCEUS.

The CTUO urged the government not to introduce any scheme without statutory backing and guaranteed resource allocation. "The proposed legislation," its statement read, "should include conditions of work, regulation of employment, guaranteed minimum wages, equal remuneration for women and social security, with effective implementation machinery in place."

"The proposed Bill is only an expression of intent," said Tapan Sen, veteran trade unionist and Rajya Sabha member of the Communist Party of India (Marxist). "There is no assurance of any floor-level security such as health coverage or old-age pension. This is something that we expected of the government. The minimum quantum can be decided subsequently but at least a subsistence-level pension is needed. There is nothing in this Cabinet note to suggest that."

The NCEUS had initially proposed a draft Bill - Unorganised Sector Workers (Conditions of Work and Livelihood Promotion) Bill, 2005. Following feedback and comments from the trade unions and other representative bodies, it revised its proposal and emerged with two Bills, namely, the Unorganised Non-agricultural Sector Workers (Conditions of Work and Livelihood Promotion) Bill, 2007 and the Unorganised Agricultural Sector Workers (Conditions of Work and Livelihood Promotion) Bill, 2007. Both Bills contained provisions relating to the conditions of work and social security.

While the trade unions had reservations about the lack of any defined financial commitment for social security in the NCEUS Bills, they felt that the Bills were a good, if not perfect, beginning. There were some problems with the nomenclature used, especially as the trade unions believe that there is little point in making a distinction between the unorganised and the organised worker in the agricultural sector since all agricultural work is in the unorganised sector. They suggested that the Bills be called Agricultural Workers (Conditions of Work, Livelihood Promotions and Security) Bill and Unorganised Sector Workers (Conditions of Work, Livelihood Promotion and Social Security) Bill. There were also problems regarding the proposal to set up a National Fund without any stated financial obligation on the part of the government or the employers. The trade unions wanted the NCEUS to make specific recommendations outlining contributions from the government in terms of gross domestic product (GDP) percentage and from the employers in the form of an appropriate cess or levy.

The trade unions now believe that the government is balking at two comprehensive Bills and on its commitment for comprehensive social security and improved working conditions because of financial problems. If funds were the hurdle to set up a minimum floor-level security, Sen said, the trade unions had suggested a levy on all salaried groups except those who were not paid minimum wages, and a tax on turnover or profit on the employers. "We even suggested a tax on the organised sector, which is our base, to raise funds for the minimum floor-level social security for the unorganised sector workers," said Sen. "A definite funding commitment has to be there."

Uday Patwardhan, national general secretary of the Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh, said the trade unions were unanimous in their opinion on comprehensive social security coverage for the unorganised sector. "We had a feeling that the government did not want legislation covering the unorganised sector because of fund constraints. We suggested a cess on all income groups to raise money for social security for this sector but we felt that there should be a piece of legislation governing this," he said. Patwardhan said that after having gone through four different drafts and three different committees, the government had come out with a totally unacceptable proposal.

The Cabinet has evidently paid little heed to the NCEUS or the trade unions, who believe that the mere notification of welfare schemes without legislation guaranteeing livelihood protection and assuring a certain financial obligation on the employers and the government will be ineffective and difficult to implement.

The central trade unions had in all tripartite discussions insisted on the need for separate Bills dealing with workers in the agricultural sector and in other unorganised sectors. Of the 36.9 crore workers in the unorganised sector, 23.7 crore are in the agricultural sector and 1.7 crore in the construction sector. The remaining are employed in the mining, manufacturing and service sectors.

The demand for legislation for agricultural workers is not new, said W.R. Varadarajan, CITU secretary. In 1975, the Ministry of Labour proposed Central legislation for agricultural workers on the pattern of the Kerala Agricultural Workers' Act, 1974. In 1991, the National Commission on Rural Labour recommended Central legislation for agricultural labour.

Earlier, social security schemes for workers in the unorganised sector had failed to work. A contributory scheme flagged off in 50 districts by the National Democratic Alliance government in 2004, too, was finally closed. The government admitted that the contributions from workers were used for making premium payments under the universal health insurance and personal accident insurance schemes.

In the NCMP, the UPA promises the fullest implementation of minimum wage laws for farm labour and comprehensive protective legislation for all agricultural workers. It further states that the UPA is firmly committed to social security, health insurance and other schemes for weavers, handloom workers, fisher folk, toddy tappers, leather workers, plantation labour, beedi workers and so on. It would be a travesty of justice to 93 per cent of the workforce if legislation covering all aspects of the working conditions and social security of workers in the unorganised sector is not brought in. It is also clear that any legislation that the government brings about is bound to meet with resistance if it does not stick to decisions taken at tripartite forums.