Coming home to roost

Of interest just at present is the total reversal of the decline in union militancy that became so visible in the early Nineties. That had happened, moreover, without touching the job market in any direct way except setting upvoluntary retirement schemes and a National Renewal Fund which got quickly reduced to funding these schemes. Mere talk of reform did the trick.

It was customary for labour leaders to mutter dejectedly in those days about the trade union quot;movementquot; having been put on the defensive. Stories appeared about labour8217;s declining ability to disrupt production. Fears of impending privatisation and modernisation were rampant in union ranks. Hard times, those, and much worse seemed in the offing.

Well, the worriers can relax. A resort to studies on the frequency and strength of strikes is scarcely necessary in the face of overwhelming everyday evidence: striking teachers, nurses, hospital karamcharis and postal employees, not to mention perpetually striking aviation staff, bank unions and those panicked by the prospect of insurance-sector liberalisation. Welcome to the Seventies.

No prizes for spotting when white-collar union militancy got a new lease of life, though the trend has been visible for longer. Theconjunction of weak governments and the Fifth Pay Commission largesse by Inder Kumar Gujral amp; Co. indicated that concessions were the order of the day and aggression an advantage. Why blame the unions for reading it aright?

In the midst of this resurgence, a silent scam in government employment has been perpetrated by the senior bureaucracy. It astoundingly passed unremarked except for the occasional word, believe it or not, of praise. One speaks of the decision to raise central government employees8217; retirement age from 58 to 60 years.

Now the problem is not immediately apparent. Rich nations, faced with alarmingly mounting pension bills, also toy with raising the retirement age. And people do deserve to work longer than the government permits. But why must it be with government, an overstretched employer? The jobless deserve jobs too, and this step is not in their interests.

To begin with, this step puts off pension expenses for a mere two years, not does away with them. This government hasconveniently stored up trouble for a successor. Two, those who benefit are in their peak earning years. The government will pay out far more on their salaries and perks than it will put off paying on pensions. Three, it disfavours new jobs and flies smack in the face of professed policy. Attrition was meant to help trim government jobs, absent radical reform. All retiring staff need not be replaced.

Attempts to squeeze new recruitments will now redouble as existing employees work longer something has to give somewhere. This is a classic example of entrenched interests winning the day over new aspirants.

To top it all, the thing is a quot;scamquot; because of that little bird called conflict of interest. Those who have a stake in a matter have no business to set policy on it. Yet the Committee of Secre-taries, presided over by precisely the ageing bureaucrats who now get two extra years in office, recommends it as a fit measure and gets away with it!

The weak governments of the day do not have the nerve toresist demands on pay, some of which are justified considering what has been given away to other employees. But government can and should try to link them to some degree of reform. Teachers could have been offered the option of permanent jobs at relatively low pay or signing fixed-term, renewable, contracts for higher pay. That is the trade-off between security and high earnings. There is nothing outlandish here except a lack of will and letting existing employees call the shots in an over-supplied market. Contract jobs are routine in the private sector and help it get around not being able to hire and fire according to its needs.

Government can at least start talking about its employees8217; invisible but massive many of them feudal perks when assailed by union demands. Here again, trade-offs are needed. It may not be from choice, but teaching is in large measure a part-time job: think of one profession which allows more free time to an individual. Now convert that free time into money. It makes teacherslook less badly off than we are used to thinking. There are those, of course, who would rather work longer and earn more. So give them the freedom to take other jobs. Most teachers give private tuition anyway, some to the pupils they ought to teach in class but don8217;t because they use that time to make money privately, their government salary being assured.

A more powerful vested interest is civil servants. Let them take hefty pay increases too provided they forgo government housing, the private use of government staff and cars, and sundry invisible perks which add up to far more than apparently fat private-sector salaries. Put a value on having a peon wait in queue for three hours to book officials8217; train tickets for their private travel, which a private-sector wallah would do himself.

Let things be seen upfront. The whining about parity with the private sector pay would stop if a middle-level bureaucrat was offered a Rs-30,000 salary instead of a house on New Delhi8217;s Shah Jahan road. It is time to atleast ventilate these things if there is to be any prospect of job reform in the future. The bottom line is the need for a modicum of will. Cheap gimmickry such as periodically raising the civil-services entrance age limit is hardly the way. All that does is make it hard to differentiate between trainee civil servants and those on their way out. Talk of fighting ageism!