A better way to avoid multiplicity of unions

The government reportedly is mulling a move to restrict the number of unions in an enterprise, so as to reduce the hassle of the management having to deal with multiple unions, often working at cross purposes. This is a sound move, but the government could do better than the policy it is reported to favour. The government proposes that the management should deal with one union that has more than 50% of the permanent workers of the enterprise as members, or, in case there is no single union that qualifies in this fashion, to deal with as many unions together whose combined strength in the enterprise is at least 50% of the workers. There is a better idea. The Centre for Public Policy and Critical Theory at the Shiv Nadar University suggests, as part of its labour law reform proposal, an alternative.

It moots every enterprise having one recognised union in which all workers are members. Individual unions can contest elections to hold office in this officially recognised union. Unions are free to function, organising workers without affecting the work of the enterprise. However, the differences of opinion among different unions should be settled within the general body of the official union, whose leadership would represent the collective voice of the enterprise’s workers before the management. This would reduce the hassle for the management, obviously. It will serve workers’ interests better as well, on two counts: the management would not be able to play one union off against another, and unions will work in a democratic framework.

One official body to represent members of a group who might hold diverse views and organise into separate subgroups that seek to influence the representative body, is the way parliamentary democracy itself works.

This piece appeared as an editorial opinion in the print edition of The Economic Times.

Source:-The Economic Times