The Narendra Modi government’s claim that the new labour laws will facilitate ease of doing business is false, Congress leader and former Labour Minister Mallikarjun Kharge said on Saturday, adding that the three labour codes passed by Parliament are “anti-worker” and remove the hard-earned social security net.
Earlier on Wednesday, Parliament has passed the three labour codes — the Industrial Relations Code, the Social Security Code and the Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020, that gives the establishments greater freedom in worker termination and exit policies. Their passage in Rajya Sabha by voice vote came amid a boycott by opposition parties, including the Congress and the Left, over the suspension of eight MPs.
States bypassed
“They have weakened trade unions and finished the security and safety for the workers. States’ powers have been usurped by the central government with these laws. These codes are anti-worker, anti-labourer and it is important to agitate against them,” Mr. Kharge said, addressing a press conference in the national capital.
Stating that labour laws were not the impediment in “ease of doing business”, Mr Kharge said, “In 2014, a survey done by the International Labour Organisation said less than 10% businesses listed labour laws as an obstacle. The problem lies elsewhere, like problem in getting loans, governmental clearances and so on.”
Workers’ security lost
Indian National Trade Union Congress (INTUC) president G. Sanjeeva Reddy, who also addressed the press conference. alleged that there is no provision for safety and security of workers in the new bills. Mr. Reddy questioned, “Who did the government bring this law for? They have taken away our fundamental right to strike if faced by an injustice. So how will it help the workers?”
There was protection for workers earlier as permission was needed to lay off more than 100 workers, but now that “security net” is gone with the increase in threshold to 300, he said.
“About 2-3 crore small scale industries have been excluded from this protection,” he claimed.
