CEYLON
TRADE UNIONS FACE CHALLENGE OF WAGE FREEZE
By Edmund Samarakkody
Colombo
The question of the inadequacy of existing wage rates in Ceylon was taken out of the realm of controversy when the Wilmot Perera commission, appointed by Bandaranaike in 1957, recommended wage increases for government employees involving the expenditure by the government of Rs 45,000,000 [Lone rupee = about $.21]. The urgency of granting increased wages was further recognised by the proposal of the commission that their recommendations be implemented as from 1960 although their report was published in 1961.
The wage increases recommended by the Wilmot Perera commission fell far short of the additional remuneration necessary for wage earners to meet the prevailing high cost of living. The commission had by implication admitted that their recommendations were not based on a realistic cost-of-living index, which in their view should have been computed from a new survey of households and from a new pricing manual. It was thus no surprise that the commission was not unanimous on the fundamental question of the quantum of the new minimum wage. The majority of this commission recommended a new minimum wage of Rs 135 a month for an unskilled worker while the minority (N.S. Perera) recommended a minimum wage of Rs 150 for an unskilled person and Rs 175 a month for a technical worker. And in a situation of disagreement in the commission on the minimum wage, the demand of the trade unions for a minimum wage of Rs 200 a month could not be dismissed as excessive.
With an existing government minimum wage for unskilled workers of Rs 125 a month, what is the picture of prevailing wage conditions?
A random reference to wage levels in the so-called regulated categories of trade is revealing. According to the same commission, "on a Tea or Rubber estate it was exceptional for any worker to earn a monthly income of more than Rs 80 per month even if work was available and given full attendance...the average cash income of an estate worker (Tea and Rubber) was Rs 53.55 per month per worker." And if the monetary value of the so-called free benefits (free housing, free medical services, etc.) which amounts to Rs 8.59 is added, we arrive at the figure of Rs 62.14 as the average income per worker.
The picture is not less depressing in other categories. The minimum wage (without overtime) in the harbour, dock and transport trade could be as low as Rs 58.75 a month and the maximum earnings Rs 90.74. In the textile trade, conditions are worse. It is not unusual to find all workers in a factory paid uniform rates. Depending on the attendance the total earnings of workers in most enterprises are between Rs 35 a month and Rs 60 a month! And in the so-called people's movement -- the cooperative trade, the picture is distressing. Of 4,545 managers of cooperative stores, 3,179 were earning less than Rs 100 a month. Out of 2,815 sales personnel, 2,749 get less than Rs 50 a month.
In a situation of belated recognition by a capitalist government that the wage levels of the large majority of workers and wage earners are insufficient to meet the high cost of living, and with substandard conditions of wage earners in the private sector, what has been the policy of the trade-union movement?
Between 1957 and 1959, the trade unions launched strike action for a special living allowance and on the wage issue generally. Strikes in separate sectors in 1961 even led to a general strike (January 5, 1962). The 1964 movement around the "21 demands" was a step in the direction of a confrontation between the trade unions on the one Side and the employers and the government on the other. But this opposition to the wage freeze between 1957 and 1964 was a movement of the rank and file of the trade unions. With the exception of a few trade unions, the leaderships of the large majority of trade unions were not opposed to the wage freeze. From 1957 to 1964, the trade-union movement (with exceptions) functioned within the framework of support of the SLFP [Sri Lanka Freedom party] government. Opposition to the wage-freeze policy of the SLFP government and confrontation with the government on this issue was not acceptable to the majority of the trade-union leadership.
This was the common policy of N.M.Perera [LSSP -- Lanka Sama Samaja party],
Peter Keuneman [pro~Moscow Communist party], Shanmugathasan [pro-Peking Communist party], Philip Gunawardena, Thondaman and most leaders of the leading trade unions. The abandonment in 1964 of the movement of the trade unions for the struggle around the 21 demands was the further working out of their policy of support for the SLFP which led the trade unions into the SLFP-LSSP coalition government. Thus, during the last eight years the leadership of the majority of the trade unions have directly or indirectly supported government policy of enforcing the wage freeze.
The policy of the present UNP (United National party] government on the wage freeze needed no speculation. The opposition of the UNP to a general wage increase “remained unconcealed although there is no officially declared government policy of a wage freeze. Moreover their assumption to office has coincided with the deepening crisis of the economy. And especially in the present context of very low prices for the agricultural exports of tea, rubber and coconut, the capitalist class and the UNP government need drastic measures to sustain the economy and capitalist class rule.
These measures can well be the withdrawal of food subsidies, increase of bus fares, postal fares, and increased taxes on the essential commodities of the people. The slashing of government expenditure on social services has already commenced. The devaluation of the Ceylon rupee cannot be ruled out as a course of action that the government may well take in desperation. In this context the continuation of the wage freeze is only incidental to the general assault on the already low living standards of the people. But before the government commences such a frontal attack on the people, they need to strike at, disrupt and destroy the trade-union movement. .
What was the reaction of the trade-union leadership to the situation that confronted the working-class movement after the UNP government assumed office? Did the trade-union movement begin to close their ranks? Have the trade-union leaders sought to mobilise the workers and wage earners for their own defence? On the contrary, far from having awakened to the dangers facing the trade-union movement, they continued in their old policies of keeping the workers and wage earners divided and disoriented.
The trade unions led by Thondaman, Philip Gunawardena and the Federal party have, since the formation of the UNP government, been committed to support government policy on the wage question and generally on most issues.
The coalition-led unions (SLFP-LSSP and CP), after about eight months of inaction, led the workers under their influence into a criminally irresponsible action -the January 8 strike on a communal issue. The workers and wage earners, who were thus exposed to a direct attack by the government, suffered by the physical violence of the army and police and much more by the victimisation that followed. Over 5,000 government workers and wage earners were dismissed from the services, whilst many more suffered fines and other penalties.
And far from taking realistic steps in defence of these workers, the leaders have, thereafter, only further disoriented the workers by strengthening their parliamentary illusions. The hundreds of victimised workers were advised by their leaders to wait for redress till the election of the next SLFP-LSSP coalition government. This was also the perspective held out to wage earners generally on the burning question of a wage rise.
Despite the efforts of the unions led by the LSSP-CP to channelise the growing discontent among the workers and wage earners into a parliamentarist course, the wage issue has become more sharply posed than before. The demands of the wage earners for increased wages have become irresistible and unpostponable.
But the reformist leaders of the trade-union movement still continue to distract the workers from struggle by raising a controversy on the question of demands. Having previously disrupted trade-union unity on the 21 demands in return for a coalition with the SLFP, the LSSP- and CP-led trade-union leaders have now put forward 15 demands, Shanmugathasan has put forward 12. And of course this manoeuvre is not without effect at present. It has helped to obstruct any moves of the workers for united action on their wage demands.
While the trade-union leaders in rival camps compete in displaying concern for the wage earners by referring to their respective list of demands, the workers and wage earners have already moved into action. The general strike called by the bank employees union in support of the strike at Grindlays and National Bank took place despite a state of emergency declared by the government. This strike was followed by
the 45-day strike of the plantation workers led by the Democratic Workers Congress for the special living allowance of Rs 17.50. This strike, affecting over a lakh [100,000] of workers, was spread out in four provinces.
Both these: strikes might have terminated with victory for the workers if the entire trade-union movement could have unequivocally and unreservedly supported these strikes. But this is just what did not happen. The hide-and-seek policies of most trade-union leaders, their irresponsibility, leading to open treachery in the case of some of then, helped to isolate and weaken these struggles.
What the trade-union movement needs is not a controversy over new demands but: a new perspective of struggle. And responsible leaders of the trade-union movement should know that a confrontation with the employers and the government on the issue of wages needs above all united action of the organised working class and wage earners. White separate actions by different trade-union federations or by trade-union centres could no doubt in certain special circumstances win wage concessions, the breaking of the wage freeze affecting the wider sections of the workers, and the defence of the working class from the attacks of the employers and the government call for nothing less than the united action of the organised trade-—union movement.
Besides, in the present situation it is not a question of. winning some demand or other of a trade union from the employer, but the defence of the existing tradeunion rights and the preservation of the trade-union movement that is involved. Continued disunity, disorientation and inaction of ‘the workers and wage earners means the growth of reaction and the eventual breakup of the trade-union movement. In this context the unity of the trade-union movement becomes paramount and imperative. Political differences cannot be permitted to obstruct the achievement of unity. A united front of the trade unions means the forging of a common front for action despite differences on other issues. And in this context the fullest mobilisation of the working class and wage earners could be realised only through a united front of trade unions and political parties of the working class.
Will the trade-union leadership show their sense of responsibility in this situation? The answer depends on whether the rank and file of the trade-union movement can, before it is too late, pressure their leaders to take the correct course of: action.