brand logo

Restricting trade unions

02 Feb 2022

Not only trade unions, but many parties have expressed their displeasure over the recent statement made by Justice Minister President’s Counsel M.U.M. Ali Sabry that the right of trade unions within sectors such as the ports, Customs, the Ceylon Electricity Board, the Government Medical Officers’ Association, and the Ceylon Petroleum Corporation, to strike, should be abolished in the Constitution. History bears witness to the fact that thousands of workers shed their blood and sweat for any victory that the working people have achieved today. The trade unions, which are considered one of such achievements, have long played a major role in winning the rights of working people through various means, including trade union struggles. Trade unions, organisations of employees working in government, semi-government, or private sector organisations, use the trade union struggles as one of the means of winning their demands. At the same time, strikes, an aspect of trade union struggles, would in turn cause difficulties for the organisations they work for and the parties that receive services from them, depending on the scale of the strike. As in the case of all other segments, trade unions too have undergone significant changes over the past two centuries in terms of their roles and priorities. However, negotiating with the authorities to win their demands and engaging in trade union struggles if such negotiations fail can still be seen as the major role of the trade unions. Although trade unions are favoured by the working class as they allow workers to make demands with a united front, governments in many parts of the world are less fond of trade unions. The main reason for this dislike is because governments lose popularity when trade union actions affect the general public, as the wrath of the public is directed both to the workers who are engaged in these actions as well as the Government for not being able to provide a resolution to the issue or nip it in the bud. Even those who are recognised as great political leaders have at times made certain decisions that have undermined the trade unions and their right to strike. It is worth revisiting a notable example from four decades ago when legendary Singaporean politician Lee Kuan Yew tackled the crisis bedevilling the Singapore Airlines in 1980. The dispute took place because the Singapore Airlines Pilots’ Association demanded a 30% hike in the basic salaries and better working conditions. In order to make its demand felt, the pilots’ union launched a work-to-rule industrial action. However, following a meeting with those engaged in the said action, Yew stated that he had given them two choices – whether to continue the agitation or get back to work – and in the latter case, the Government could have a discussion over their demands. He made it clear to them that he was prepared to ground the airlines and teach them a lesson if they continue with their work-to-rule industrial action. He said: “I told them to get back to work, restore discipline, then argue your case. It took them 65 minutes and they decided ok, it wasn’t worth the fight. Why? Because they knew they’d lose. They knew that I was prepared to ground the airline. They knew that I could get the airline up again without them.” Many Sri Lankans have long harboured expectations of seeing Sri Lanka become another Singapore. However, there is a crucial difference between the Yew example and Sri Lanka. Yew led Singapore to its present state and it is evident that he truly wanted to serve his tiny country and its people, which in turn brought him great popularity and loyalty from the Singaporean population. It is common for Sri Lankan rulers and political parties to use trade unions as pawns to achieve their political goals. There is no doubt that the rulers of Sri Lanka can teach the leaders of other countries on how to persuade the trade unions to go on strike with the intention of embarrassing the people and the Government when they are in the Opposition, and to criticise the same trade unions when they come to power as if they knew nothing. Governments have also taken action on various occasions to unfairly or illegally suppress the activism of trade unions. The best example of this is the frequent attacks over the years on peaceful protests. Such an attack on a group of protestors, including teachers’ union representatives in Colombo in August last year, led to a massive trade union struggle of teachers and principals that lasted over three months. In this context, it must be asked whether Ali Sabry’s suggestion that the trade unions’ right to strike should be abolished was really a matter of public concern or a narrow aim to prevent public discontent with the Government through trade union activism. Therefore, if it is really concerned for the people, it is the responsibility of the Government to protect trade union rights, which are a fundamental part of democracy, and to create the necessary environment for professionals to live with dignity without becoming political henchmen. If the Government is planning to impose restrictions on trade unions in the face of opposition from many quarters, it will only add another dimension to the chain of issues that is currently plaguing the country. Hence, the Government must adopt the elementary principles of psychology and management, including negotiation and compromise, to maintain and improve their volatile relations with the trade unions.


More News..