When the workers of the Samsung Electronics unit in Sriperumbudur, 40 km from Chennai, went on strike for better wages and improved conditions on September 9, little did they realise that their struggle would evolve into a watershed moment in Tamil Nadu’s labour movement in the post-liberalisation era. When it finally ended on October 16, it had lasted for 38 days, becoming the longest industrial unrest in recent times. The last such prolonged strike was in 2018 at the Royal Enfield factory, which lasted for 50 days.
Also Read | Our main demand is recognition of the union; if that happens, we will call off strike: A. Soundararajan
The strife at the Samsung plant began like any other labour unrest and was confined to the striking workers of the South Korean electronics giant, their families, and supporters. The Centre of Indian Trade Unions (CITU), the labour wing of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), was the lone organisation that supported it in the early stages. However, when the strike showed no signs of ending, various political parties in Tamil Nadu including allies of the ruling party, the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), jumped in, causing acute embarrassment for the State government.
Major crisis
The issue soon snowballed into a major crisis, and the DMK government feared that it would drive away potential investors who had been promised a hassle-free and peaceful industrial environment and thwart the State’s ambitious mission to transform into a $1 trillion economy by 2030. The DMK was also apprehensive that the strike would raise uncomfortable questions about its “Dravidian model” of development. Pushed to a corner, the DMK government decided that it was in its best interests to “end” the strike as early as possible. It is this haste that led to misunderstanding and friction not only among the workers but also among its allies. It is now clear that when the strike began, little thought had gone into how the government ought to respond in the event of a prolonged stir. In fact, in the initial phases of the strike, the DMK’s labour wing, the Labour Progressive Federation (LPF), had supported the CITU and the striking workers.
As the strike prolonged, the State government finally sent its Ministers as envoys. However, the first tripartite meeting, led by a committee of three Ministers—T.R.B. Rajaa (Industries), T.M. Anbarasan (Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises, or MSME), and C.V. Ganesan (Labour)—failed to break the logjam, and at this point, the LPF quietly withdrew its support. LPF general secretary M. Shanmugam even accused the CITU of “blowing out of proportion the demands of workers and refusing to put an end [to the strike]”.
Highlights
- The strike lasted for 38 days, the longest industrial unrest in Tamil Nadu since 2018.
- The DMK government’s haste led to misunderstanding and friction among the workers and among its allies.
- The workers’ main demand was that the Samsung India Workers Union (SIWU) be registered, but the company objected to it.
It was clear that the ministerial committee had handled the issue clumsily. Having wrangled some guarantees from the Samsung management, including for better wages and amenities, the government prematurely declared that the strike had ended. But the CITU and the striking workers had rejected the deal. Their main demand was that the CITU-backed Samsung India Workers Union (SIWU) be registered, but the company objected to this, claiming that its main concern was the union having Samsung in its name.
Government missteps
At this time, the State government made its second mistake. It sent the police to intimidate the workers, dismantled the tent at the protest site, and even arrested a few workers. This added fuel to the fire and led to the allegation that the government was acting in cahoots with the company. Following this, CITU leader A. Soundararajan warned that there might be some “serious political ramifications”. He said: “The government seems to have apprehensions that the Samsung strike might spread to other industrial units.” The CITU refused to buckle under pressure, political or non-political, and the Samsung workers, too, remained united and strong.
Also in this issue:
For Chief Minister M.K. Stalin, the strike had now become a political hot potato. On the one hand, he wanted to please the multinational and send out the signal that the environment in Tamil Nadu was investment-friendly. On the other, not only had his allies gone against him, his own party’s image of fighting for workers’ rights was under attack.
Drawing flak from multiple quarters, he ordered a second tripartite meeting with a rehashed committee. The MSME Minister was replaced by Public Works Minister E.V. Velu. This time, an agreement was reached with the understanding that the demands of the workers that would be officially finalised would include registration of the union, improved wages and working conditions, and a commitment that no retributory action would be taken. A visibly relieved Stalin took to X to express happiness.
Legal challenge
Meanwhile, the writ petition filed in the Madras High Court by P. Ellan, general secretary of the newly formed SIWU, seeking registration came up for hearing. Samsung filed a petition to implead itself in the case. In its representation, the company objected to the use of the word “Samsung” in the labour union’s name, which it claimed would affect the “company’s reputation”. Its counsel G. Rajagopalan also claimed that the company had incurred a loss of around $100 million as a result of the strike.
Also Read | Samsung strike: Workers arrested as battle for union recognition continues
The senior lawyer N.G.R. Prasad, appearing for the petitioner, told the court that this was not a trademark dispute. “We are not rivals in their business,” he said. He pointed out that the writ was confined to the trade union and its registration, and the Trade Unions Act, 1926, did not prohibit the use of a company’s name. The case has been adjourned to November 11.
The Samsung strike appears to have reignited the labour union movement in Tamil Nadu and rekindled the hopes of the working class that they will be able to fight against exploitation. Politically, the CPI(M) appears to have decided to identify itself closely with labour issues once again.
In today’s exploitative neoliberal environment, marked by widespread uncertainty affecting skilled and unskilled workers, both organised and unorganised, and with the rise of artificial intelligence posing a new challenge to labour, trade unions face an uphill battle. They must work harder than ever to safeguard both industrialisation and the rights of workers.
While the unrest has been sorted out for the time being, there is still speculation about how similar issues will play out in future and whether the State government, as the nodal agency of mediation, will stand by workers.
