THE Modi government announces its big ticket labour market reforms. Branded as Shramev Jayate, these labour reforms have the objective of pleasing both labour and capital and removing the ‘obstacles’ to economic investment and growth. But Modi is not alone in trying to please labour and capital in one stroke. Even those politically opposed to him are arguing that labour reforms are needed and that they should be suited to address the problems of labour market rigidities which have traditionally held back economic growth. This attempt to bring out a balance between labour rights and capitalist interests is most evident in a much debated and influential document brought out by the Centre for Public Affairs and Critical Theory, Shiv Nadar University (hence forth C-PACT) entitled “Rethinking the Industrial Disputes Act: Labour Relations for a New India”. Written by secular and democratic minded intellectuals, the document aims to meet the goal of labour rights with corporate growth. Thus it intends to keep all parties happy and find a way out in a situation that is fast turning out to be a confrontational one between the labour unions and the government. SIGNALLING THE END OF TRIPARTITE NEGOTIATIONS Any discussion of this document needs to be contextualised in the current political context. Though labour reforms have been on the anvil for several decades, the manner in which these reforms have been pushed is noteworthy. The tradition of consultation with registered central trade unions has been ignored, so much so that even the BJP backed Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh is out on the roads against its own government. This is an attack on the core principles of labour relations that have been won after hard fought battles and struggles by the working class. While it is obvious that politically conservative and corporate backed governments are going to attack the process of tripartite negotiations, what is more surprising is that the C-PACT document does not acknowledge its role in policy formulation. In its very first statement, the document lays out the principles on which reformed labour laws should be based. These are citizenship, trust, role of management in building trust, common cause and augmenting skills and human resources. It should be noted that trust between labour and management seems to be a key stone of this alternative policy. But this proposition is flawed on at least three counts. First, it betrays a misplaced understanding of the character of neo-liberal corporate capital and its growing contradiction with the working class. It is also a naïve and decontextualised analysis of the behaviour of corporates and capital in a neo-liberal world. The growing rate of super profits and primary accumulation from remote regions is testimony to the fact that capital has acquired unprecedented dominance over the interests of the worker, and any alternative policy has to keep this deep inequality in mind. It is also for this reason that the role of registered trade unions is crucial in the process of the formulation of any law or policy. Unfortunately the C-PACT document only discusses this at the level of dispute resolution at the worksite and not at the level of much broader core principles. MAINTAINING LABOUR MARKET FLEXIBILITY Another core principle of the alternative strategies suggested by the C-PACT document is the maintenance of labour market flexibility. Given the context of expanding informality, the document explicitly states that all workers should be treated at par as permanent employees unless they are fired from their jobs. On the other hand, the employer retains the right to fire but at a cost. A large part of the document seeks to ensure adequate compensation, provident fund and severance pay in case a worker is fired from their job. The entire approach seems to suggest that those who can pay will be able to fire employees without any legal encumbrances. This clearly favours big business whose capacity to pay the compensatory packages being suggested cannot be doubted. In this sense, the C-PACT formulation keeps intact the labour market flexibility which is absolutely crucial to maintaining the neo-liberal order and its exorbitant rate of the surplus extraction. Further, this proposition is based on a misconception that labour market rigidities are an obstacle to the expansion of investment and efficiency within industrial relations. Contemporary scholarly studies have indicated that labour market rigidities operate in a very small organised sector to which labour laws are applicable. Since the major part of the Indian workforce is tied in informal labour relations, the main problem is not one of rigidities, but of how to give workers formal and decent employment under corporate capitalism. Several recommendations have been made by the Second National Labour Commission and by the National Commission of Enterprises in the Unorganised Sector. These reports have important recommendations relating to the working conditions and welfare of workers and have not been taken note of in the C-PACT document. Rather the document accepts the terms of the debate as set up by the Industrial Disputes Act and works well within its scope, rather than expanding the ambit of labour rights within it. In the process, the only positive point it provides is that it states that all workers will be considered ‘permanent’ irrespective of the size of the industrial establishment and the length of time within the job. WORKERS COUNCILS Another important feature of the C-PACT document is the way in which it conceives workers councils and the industrial dispute resolution mechanism. It takes an explicit stand against the existence of multiple unions within the same enterprise when it says that “contestations over this often lead to fracturing workers not so long term interests’. This argument for one workers council has some merit, but is based on the understanding that workers form one class and have no heterogeneous interests. This is reflected in the fact that the workers council shall be one elected council with no union representation. Hence, though union representatives may compete to be in workers councils, there will be no formal union representation on the council. At the same time, the document explicitly states that strikes will not be allowed as a pressure tactic in dispute resolution. This itself goes against the basic political rights of a workers organisation, especially in a situation where big capital has to be forced to negotiate with workers organisations. Hence a sanitised workers council, even though it may be represented in the board, may not serve the purpose of disciplining capital. This approach adopted by the C-PACT document echoes a certain cynicism with political trade unionism which is necessary to build a larger workers struggle against neo-liberalism. In this it shares the political bias of ‘civil society’ activism and corporate media which has been advocating independent rather than politically affiliated trade unionism. This is also one way of depoliticising the question of workers and labour rights and advocating adjustment with, rather than resistance to, predatory corporate capitalism.