|
“There
are men on the streets who jeer at us by saying that you work for
the entire day, you earn only Rs 30 to 40 but we’ll pay you Rs
100 for just five minutes! If you are good looking or if you are
young, there is increased harassment…”
“Sweepers are largely Holeyas and Madigas. There are workers
from other castes, too. There is no respect for our work. We clean
other people’s dirt and we are looked down upon. If we stop
cleaning, imagine what would happen. Your health is taken care of
because of our work. Don’t you want to take care of our health,
also? We work despite the rain and the sun. Shouldn’t we be paid
adequate wages? And shouldn’t our children be better off,
someday?”
“We may be sweepers but we also have some self-respect. We are
human beings. Our work is not without value or dignity. We come to
work early in the morning. There is nobody at home to ensure that
our children go to school. This is the reason they do not study
properly. When they get older, they will also carry a broom and
follow in our footsteps.”
These
are excerpts from the daily lives of contract powrakarmika
(municipal workers) employed by the Bangalore Municipal
Corporation. Their lives have no more value to the Corporation
than the dust they remove to make Bangalore the clean ‘garden
city’ it is known as. Do these people who remain invisible under
the dust they rake up not have a right to a dignified life? Do
they not require at least two meals a day? Is it not their right
to get a minimum wage for all their hard work? They help us to
remain healthy in the city by keeping it clean – do they not
deserve a healthy existence? Should these powrakarmika who
work in the open, in the rain and under hot skies not have a home
of their own? Should they not hope for a better life for their
children?
Illegality
of employment conditions
The
Bangalore Municipal Corporation started the practice of
contracting out municipal cleaning operations in 1991. The reason
given was that the Corporation did not have enough resources to
directly employ workers to keep the city clean. But the
Corporation was grossly guilty of having flouted the law.
The Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolishment) Act clearly
states that work may be contracted out by an organisation only if
it is not of a perennial nature, and is not a core activity of the
organisation. Keeping the city clean cannot be anything other than
the core activity of the Corporation. It is also of a perennial
nature, recognising no holidays through the year. Therefore the
act of contracting out the work was itself against the law.
But even within the context of contract work the law has been
repeatedly transgressed. The Act states that for identical work,
contract workers should be given the same wages and benefits as
permanent employees. While the nearly five thousand permanent
workers of the Corporation employed in cleaning get wages of Rs
5,000 to 6,000 per month, and health care, leave and retirement
benefits as available to other government employees, the nearly
eight thousand contract powrakarmika get between Rs 1,000
and 1,500 per month with no other benefits – not even a weekly
off. Even this wage has come after a long and bitter struggle by
the workers and their union, the Bangalore Mahanagara Pallike
Guttige Powrakarmika Sangha.
The struggle of the contract powrakarmika in Bangalore for
minimum wages and fair working conditions has gone on with
intensity for the last four years. Till mid 2002, there was not
even a notified minimum wage for the workers, and they were at the
mercy of the contractors for the quantum of wages and conditions
of employment. The union held a number of protest demonstrations,
discussions with Corporation and Labour Department officials and
public meetings to highlight the demands of their workers. Rallies
of over two thousand workers and supporters from among concerned
residents of Bangalore, including representatives from other trade
unions, repeatedly brought to the notice of the city the concerns
of the workers. The sound of the tamte (traditional Dalit
drum) signalled the unique character of the rallies. A Fact
Finding Report was prepared by the Support Group for Contract
Powrakarmika, and was widely circulated in English and Kannada.
The media was very active in supporting the cause. Despite all
this, the reaction of the administration was to stall the matter,
issue notices and make empty promises. This was not surprising,
given the strong connections that the contractors have with the
political establishment, and the rumours of corruption and
collusion between contractors and Corporation officials. A
succession of Corporation Commissioners expressed helplessness and
inability to remedy the situation. The present Commissioner in a
discussion with union activists admitted to the tender conditions
being flouted. In a response to a question about non-payment of
minimum wages he merely said that the workers should be thankful
for the wage increase that they have received, and that changes
can only come slowly. He added that it made such a pleasant sight
now to see workers marching together in smart green uniforms.
This, from a senior officer of the state, mandated to uphold the
law.
As a response to persistent struggles, and at the initiative of
the then Labour Commissioner, the Karnataka Government finally
issued a Gazette Notification (No.CLA/CR-34/2001-02) on 29 August
2002, declaring minimum wages for all categories of work that did
not get covered in earlier categories for minimum wages.
Accordingly, as an interim measure, the minimum wage for powrakarmika
was fixed as Rs 1,800 per month, for both men and women workers.
Following the minimum wages notification, the Corporation scrapped
the existing contracts and issued fresh tenders for municipal
cleaning. The fresh tender document clearly stated that the
minimum wages payable to all workers was Rs 1,800 per month. In
addition, it stipulated that other facilities, as specified under
the law for contract workers should be made available to the powrakarmika.
The facilities specified included: medical aid to workers who
suffer bodily injury as a result of an accident; compensation to
workers under the Workmens’ Compensation Act; provision of all
necessary personal safety equipment, gloves, gumboots, masks,
etc.; provision of toilet, office and dress facilities to the
workers. Fresh tenders were issued to contractors based on the new
tender documents, in November 2002. The existing contractors then
went to court to stay the new tenders, pleading that they had not
been given adequate opportunity, and the new tender conditions
were unfair. The High Court at Bangalore rejected the plea of the
contractors, and ruled on 19 May 2003 that the fresh tenders were
fair. Following this, a government order was signed in June 2003,
giving force to the new tender conditions, including the payment
of Rs 1,800 as interim minimum wages.The new tenders thus came
into force from July 2003, and the powrakarmika expected to
be paid from that month according to the fresh tenders. However,
when the payments were made in the month of August, they found
that the payments were far less than the stipulated Rs 1,800
minimum wage. None of the facilities as specified under the tender
conditions were given, save for one green overcoat. At the same
time, the workload had increased considerably from before, and the
duration and intensity of work was much more.
There is an increase in harassment of workers. An estimated
thousand powrakarmika were dismissed from their jobs after
the new contract. Many more are forced to work in other wards,
some at considerable distance from their original place of work.
The contractors have particularly targeted workers in pockets
where the union is strong. In one ward all forty workers were
dismissed in November 2002, when the workers refused to accept
wages less than the minimum wages stipulated in the tender. The
dismissed workers included the president of the union and other
active members. To their credit these members continue to actively
participate in the union.
At the behest of the union, a second Fact Finding Report was
prepared on the changes in conditions of work since the new
contract coming into force. A janata nyayalaya (people’s
court) had its hearing on 10th January. A public
meeting was organised on 10th February with the
minister in the Karnataka government in charge for the Bangalore
Corporation. The report of the janata nyayalaya was
released on that day. The minister gave a public assurance that
minimum wages would be paid immediately. Following on this, the
minimum wages of Rs 1,800 were paid in 15 wards in February, under
the supervision of a team of officers of the Corporation. This is
a major victory for the struggle. However, in all the wards the
contractors tried to coerce workers to return Rs 200 to 400 to
them the next day. They held out the threat that unless the
workers returned that amount, they would be removed from their
jobs. Given their vulnerability, most workers gave in to the
threat. In two wards where the union is strong, the union office
bearers were able to get the workers to resist and defy the
contractors. The situation repeated itself in the month of March.
The contractors have paid Rs.1800 in most wards, and through their
supervisors sought to get workers to return part of the wages. The
union has lodged a complaint of coercion with the police in the
city. The struggle continues!
Issues
at stake
The
powrakarmika struggle raises a number of issues, including
government responsibility for ethical governance; continuance of
discrimination against Dalits; and organisation of worker
struggles. Many votaries of globalisation and the ‘free
market’ point to what they claim to be unreasonable laws that
restrict the freedom of employers to efficiently use labour. The
Second National Labour Commission constituted by the Government of
India in its report released towards the end of 2002 endorsed this
view in recommending drastic curtailment of laws regulating
conditions of work. This view is predicated on the assumption that
labour laws are actually implemented in the country. We see here
how the contrary is true. The employment of contract powrakarmika
in Bangalore to keep the city clean is a patently illegal act on a
number of counts. Despite this the practice has been going on for
over a decade, in the face of bitter struggles. The government is
directly responsible for this blatant illegality. The city prides
itself on the slogan of ‘Swaccha Bangaloru’ (clean
Bangalore). At least on this count the hands of the city
administration are not clean. The issue is not limited to the
7,000 contract powrakarmika in the city. There are around
50,000 powrakarmika across the state, all facing the same
fate. This is a colossal subversion of justice by the government.
The Madiga community among Dalit has been traditionally employed
in cleansing habitats of human waste. Their claim is that
governments represent a ‘Brahminical’ order that is determined
to maintain status quo in society. Positive critiques of the
reservation policy point to the policy being predominantly applied
to unskilled positions in the government, with employment like
cleaning of garbage being exclusively reserved for the Dalit. This
is the category that has faced the brunt of contracting out
employment and hence reduction in wages and conditions of work.
This would bear out the Dalit critique of a ‘Brahminical’ rule
determined to preserve status quo in society. There is a lot of
truth in the plea of a powrakarmika at the janata
nyayalaya: “Shouldn’t we be paid adequate wages? And
shouldn’t our children be better off, someday?”
The struggle itself raised a number of issues of unionisation in
the informal sector, and relationship between caste and class
politics. The early efforts at unionisation were by the union of
permanent powrakarmika. They said that they would assist
the contract powrakarmika to get better wages and tenured
employment. In 1996 the contract powrakarmika formed their
own union, as they found the interest and support of the permanent
workers’ union inadequate. This underscores the larger tension
between organisations of permanent and contract workers, wherever
they exist together in enterprises. While there were leaders from
non-powrakarmika, leadership of the union remained largely
Dalit. However the union managed to raise material support,
solidarity, legal assistance and other forms of organisational
help from a large cross section of individuals and groups. A
Support Group for Contract Powrakarmika was formed, that
while helping on critical occasions, remained in the background
where union decisions were concerned. In the context, a strong
worker leadership could emerge from among the powrakarmika.
This included a set of articulate and militant women leaders.
While the union made its impact felt across the city, the active
core of the union remained small, and limited to a few areas. One
reason is definitely the lack of resources. To date, the union has
depended exclusively on voluntary donations and solidarity
contributions. That has helped the union to maintain its
independence, yet count on support from varied sources.
The struggle of the contract powrakarmika would necessarily
have to sustain itself over a long period. There are different
stages of legal remedies to be fought for. The corporation,
contractors, political and legal establishment would all be
hostile or indifferent to the struggle. At another level, the
union would need to work to strengthen its position with respect
to the workers it represents. The representative nature of the
union would ultimately depend on the number of worker-cadre it can
generate, and the number of women workers who can take leadership
roles. It would depend on the union being able to take on other
issues of the community like indebtedness, health care, education
of children, slum politics, etc. The union would be able to
sustain its independence and democracy only if it can build strong
links with a support structure that believes in these ideals. All
these are large and difficult questions before the union. The fact
that it has sustained itself since its formation in 1996 despite a
very low resource base and in the face of strong and sustained
oppression is itself a measure of its resilience.
|
