After the 2nd
World War, the ruling classes had to give some concessions to the working
masses owing to, first, the necessity of immense labour for reconstruction of
production systems after huge destruction; second, successes of national
liberation movements in erstwhile colonies; and last, but not the least,
creation of a big socialist bloc of countries. However, as the expansion of
market in capitalist countries proved to be a temporary phase leading to the
unending cycle of increasingly severe economic crises and elimination of the
socialist bloc in 1978 with the restoration of capitalism in last major
socialist country China, the neo-liberal economic policies have been unleashed
in all capitalist countries leading to steep increase in inequality of wealth
and impoverishment of the vast majority of the people. India has also followed
the same policy prescriptions from 1980s onwards intensifying further in 1990s.
In the initial
years after 1947, despite gaining state power in independent India, capitalist
class neither had complete control over the economy of the country nor
sufficient capital to launch a full-scale industrialization. Hence it adopted
the path of so called ‘mixed’ economy wherein the creation of big primary
industry especially for capital goods and infrastructure was assigned to state
or ‘public’ sector which used capital accumulated from public exchequer to
serve the interests of the capitalist class. However, during this period, some
capitalist groups accumulated huge amounts of capital as beneficiaries of the
policies of import substitution, licensing, and controls. They were also
provided with large amounts of state finance capital by government agencies
like public Financial Institutions viz IDBI, ICICI, IFCI, etc and Public Sector
Banks created through bank nationalization. This helped these groups to grow
fast in size and by 1980s, these capitalists had consolidated their control
over the economy and accumulated vast amounts of monopoly capital. The now
ambitious monopoly capital was no longer dependent on state institutions and
planned large scale industrialization without shackles of licensing and control
by state. Hence the rising clamour for so called liberal reforms.
This interest of
the Indian capitalist class also converged with the global monopoly finance
capital which was looking to maximize its profits by moving the manufacturing
from high wage mature capitalist economies to lowest-cost centres in Asia,
Africa, Latin America and Eastern Europe. As the mature capitalist economies of
Europe and America have moved to more and more financialization and speculation
leading to closure of factories the global production centres have relocated to
the newly industrialized countries like India to cater to the consumption both
in those countries and also to the demand of newly emerged domestic upper and
middle classes resulting in the accelerated expansion of a new insecure and low-wage work force in auto,
textile, mining, electronics, education, the public sector, finance, and a
proliferation of commercial jobs in retail, hospitality, healthcare, etc.
Now commodity
production dominates all production from extraction of iron ores to high
technology and biomedical and pharmaceutical goods. Migrant workers are
constantly being recruited by contractors to replenish the supply of low-wage
labour available to capital. Monopoly capital promotes the migration of workers
to strategic industrial centres so as to expand reserve armies of labour and
continue the conditions necessary for low wages and unsecure conditions among
all workers. As unemployment grows exponentially through urban migration,
labour and wage costs are reduced and restrained. This larger reserve army of
cheap labour increases labour competition and reduces the bargaining power of
workers throughout the world, as Foster and McChesney wrote in The Endless
Crisis:
‘The new
imperialism of the late twentieth and twenty-first centuries is thus
characterized, at the top of the world system, by the domination of
monopoly-finance capital, and, at the bottom, by the emergence of a massive
global reserve army of labour. The result of this immense polarization is an
augmentation of the ‘imperialist rent’ extracted from the (global) South
through the integration of low-wage, highly exploited workers into capitalist
production. This then becomes a lever for an increase in the reserve army and
the rate of exploitation in the (global) North as well.’
Ideological
apologists of globalization and neo-liberal market-based strategies ignore the
growing importance of state violence that is used to support the system of
economic inequality and exploitation. In addition, the imposition of
neo-liberal reforms is accompanied by heavy funding of police and private
militias to suppress workers and peasants who oppose the new system dominated
by an alliance of the domestic and foreign monopoly finance capital.
The
concentration of finance capital through speculative banking has stimulated the
expansion of monopoly capitalist investments and laid the basis of their deeper
penetration into the yet underdeveloped hinterland of the country. The
expropriation of the surplus labour in these new markets has expanded the
profitability of capital. Also, the shift from competitive to monopoly
capitalism represents new stage of development of Indian capitalist class.
Economies characterized by competition between many firms have been replaced by
ones in which competition is limited to a handful of giant corporations in each
industry. Further advances in
transportation and communication technology has intensified the competitive
struggle between big corporations for informal control over economically
backward regions for natural resources and low-wage labour has resulted in an
economic assault against people in such regions.
Neoliberalism means
a strict system of privatization and economic liberalization that is a system
of ‘reforms’ that removes all forms of social insurance and protection,
privatizes natural resources and companies, and allows for the free flow of
international and domestic trade, without government restrictions. This has
produced a series of financial, monetary, and ecological catastrophes that have
also intensified mass poverty and the inequality and has undermined quality of
life for workers and peasants.
The financialization
of capital has forced countries like India to develop manufacturing and
production not only for national and local markets but also to generate export
promotion leading to growth of a larger working class. Ostensibly, FDI is the
lifeblood that provides the capital necessary to create manufacturing and jobs
that will reduce economic insecurity, although at the cost of uprooting
peasants and by imposing harsh living conditions on those which migrate to work
at FDI destinations. By and large big business, both domestic and foreign, are
the primary beneficiaries of FDI, multiplying their financial leverage.
Since the early
1990s India has adopted neoliberal policies encouraging FDI that dramatically
expanded new productions in non-union factories in special economic/special
export processing industrial zones provided with government subsidies for
development, low-cost land, tax abatements, and lowering of tariffs. The rapid
expansion of the auto industry for the domestic and regional markets is in no
small measure a consequence of central and state governments subsidies and
regulatory support through widespread non-enforcement of labour and union laws
by multinational manufacturers, thus containing labour costs and increasing
worker productivity.
The rapid growth
of foreign investment has dramatically transformed major cities into modern
hubs of production for export, and has markedly increased gross domestic
product. However, although India is regarded by bourgeois economists as a
successful model of economic development, the country’s investment linkages
with the imperialists economy neglect the vast majority of the population, and
intensify their inequality and exploitation. Indian cities have become the
cradle of economic insecurity for urban dwellers and recent migrants. The
degradation of labour is heightened by uneven development as precarious labour
responds to fight economic insecurity and poverty. Ultimately these precarious
workers become the visible element of a system that reproduces economic insecurity
for the majority of the people, while it enriches the few at the national and
global levels.
The rise of the
industrial working class in in the wake of neoliberal reforms aimed at
expanding corporate profitability and upper class power. The state has
encouraged FDI by reducing taxes and tariffs, and facilitating the development
of industrial zones where labour standards have been relaxed are being withdrawn
and labour unions are unwelcome. The rapid growth neoliberal capitalism has modernized
India’s industrial centres and brought them into the world economy and the
country is now firmly united with the capitalist imperialist economy as
exploitation of its vast majority of the population grows. The new Modi
government’s Make in India policy is taking this to new heights and the
government has made clear its intention of relaxing labour regulations and
protections.
This neo-liberal
capitalism is replicating now the earlier exploitative and dangerous forms of
proletarianization that forced peasants from rural to industrial urban regions
to work in commodity production and service sectors. This process bears
striking similarity to the dangerous, unsanitary, and impoverished working and
living conditions among workers in Manchester which were vividly described by
Friedrich Engels in The Condition of the Working Class in England in 1844.
The mainstream
neoliberal economists have been predicting that international development and
investment through globalization will lead to amelioration of poverty and
inequality. Through the support of World Bank, IMF, foreign trade, Foreign
Direct Investment (FDI) and foreign aid, countries like India would direct
development and economic expansion. However, these policies have led ever-more
commodification of agriculture and natural resources, creating greater reliance
on global economy. However, the World Bank inspired models of poverty indexes
fail to consider that the subsistence peasants living outside of the formal
money economy have greater security than those who are forced into the formal
economy. As they are dispossessed by neo-liberal commodification of agriculture
and pushed into urban areas their money income may increase and exceed the
government poverty index levels, but, in fact, they are often considerably
worse off than they were in the countryside. As these displaced rural peasants
are forced off the land and become urban workers they are unable to obtain even
the basic necessities for survival. This modern working class, primarily
composed of peasant workers and their families, migrating from rural regions to
industrial zones, typically lack residency and work privileges equivalent to
those enjoyed by urban inhabitants. The majority of the population in Indian
megacities consists of these displaced rural peasants who have moved to
shantytowns on the periphery of urban centres, many of which lack clean water,
medical services and sanitation.
To understand
the level of labour exploitation let us take an example from a report published
in The Mint (September 28, 2016). In a study of the textile workers of
Bangalore, a report Doing Dutch, co-authored by Clean Clothes Campaign, says
that manufacturers are paying ‘starvation wages’ at factories in a major hub
for the global garment industry in Karnataka, forcing many workers into
crippling debt. Workers surveyed at 10 garment factories in and around
Bengaluru took home on average Rs 6500-7000 a month, and 70% were in debt.
The factories
were supplying to Dutch retailer brands that have “acknowledged the importance
of living wages”. The International Labour Organisation defines a living wage
as a ‘basic human right’. Last year, the Asia Floor Wage campaign pegged a
decent living wage in India at Rs. 18,727 per month. “Workers cannot properly
support their families with this wage,” said the report. “Food and housing,
usually a one-room apartment without a water tap and with a shared toilet
outdoors, are the biggest expenses. Almost everyone would like to buy healthier
and more varied food, but is unable to do that because of low wages.”
The $40 billion
Indian textile and garment industry, much of which operates in the informal
sector and is poorly regulated, employs an estimated 45 million workers. The
report said there are around 300,000 workers in and around Bengaluru, the
capital of Karnataka, and that 80% of the workers in the city’s 1,200-odd
factories are women. A woman worker interviewed in 2015 said she walked an hour
to work and an hour back to save on bus fare.
Similarly, the
workers employed in Gurgaon’s industries barely earn enough to pay the rent on
small units built on agricultural land in the city. These are old farms that
have been transformed into what are known as ‘villages’, where they live in
Spartan lodging for exorbitant rents and often with deplorable sanitary
conditions.
To understand
how the wages for labour have been kept restrained or even depressed in real
terms after adjusting to inflation, let us see a 15th September 2016 report by
an advisory firm Korn Ferry Hay Group. It says between the 2008 recession and
2016, India has seen real salary growth of a mere 0.2%, according to an
analysis of post-recession wages in 51 countries while during the same period,
India’s GDP gain stood at 63.8%. “India has made less progress than some other
countries in bringing high-value jobs to the country. This has led to poor job
growth, therefore, an oversupply of un/semi-skilled people, and poor wage
growth,” Benjamin Frost, global product manager-pay, Korn Ferry Hay Group, said
in a release. Indian workers also suffer from a massive disparity in wages—the
highest among countries surveyed. “Of the countries that we looked at, Indian
wage growth was by far the most unequal—people at the bottom are 30% worse off
in real terms since the start of the recession; whilst people at the top are
30% better off,” Frost added.
India has a
workforce of close to 470 million. Of this, only about 7% are in the organised
sector. Out of these 31 million, about 24 million are employed by the state or
state-owned enterprises. And of the vast reservoir of over 435 million employed
in the unorganised sector, about half are engaged in the farm sector, another
10% each in construction, and small-scale manufacture and retail. These are
mostly daily-wage workers earning less than the officially decreed minimum
wages. For example, according to Faridabad Majdoor Samachar, a workers’
publication, in 2013, 75% of workers in Faridabad were not listed on company
records, 85% were employed by contractors, and 80% of all permanent and
contractor workers earned less than the statutory minimum wage.
The presence of
this expansive reserve army of workers has allowed managers to hire informal
labourers, while systemic unemployment has diluted the power of conventional
strikes and work stoppages. The informal sector has been a distinctive feature
of our economy especially tertiary workers in unregulated sectors. However, the
existing unions have failed to recognize this fact and have not directed
efforts to organize these informal workers who are completely marginalized in
our economy.
This rapidly
expanding contract labour force is also significantly responsible for the
erosion of acceptable working conditions for permanent workers and for
declining union membership. The wage differential between permanent and
contract workers ranges from 4:1 to 5:1, jeopardizing a growing number of permanent
jobs. The contractualization has therefore emerged as central issue for the
labour movement throughout India. In the Gurgaon industrial belt, for example,
contract labourers comprise 80% of the workforce; these workers earn 25-50% of
the standard wage and are prohibited from organizing in unions. The area is
inhabited by displaced young migrant from rural areas in Haryana and other
parts of the North and East of the country who are deliberately recruited
because of their lack of social ties and unfamiliarity with the region. Per a
report on the labour market of Gurgaon, ‘policy of recruiting mostly migrant
workers, without local roots, has been used by the bosses as a strategy to
undermine the power of workers in the case of a conflict.’
Through creating
a flexible supply of labour through temporary, informal, contract, and migrant
labour, capital therefore expands the share of workers employed under insecure
and precarious conditions. The development of modern capitalism no longer frees
labour from all old bondages but is compatible with the forms of unfree and
bonded labour that are entrenched in caste systems of exploitation, and these
endure and grow as multinationals compete for cheaper labour. These contracted
informal workers are highly vulnerable and precarious. They are also cruelly
exploited by the avaricious firms by setting of high production quotas and
speeding up of production assembly lines. Employers also exploit differences to
create hierarchical systems of relative favouritism to promote lower wages and
poorer conditions for all labourers. Contractors and employers hire young
workers with limited social ties to work in mines and factories. Employers also
seek to divide workers based on age, caste, ethnicity and gender.
The Indian state
does not compel managements to recognize unions formed by contract labourers.
In the growing industrial belts, corporate hostility to unions is reinforced by
government policies that prevent union organization among contract workers. When permanent workers try to form unions,
management apply familiar union-busting techniques for converting these
permanent jobs into contract labour. Due to lax enforcement of labour laws the
situation is such that even in the firms with traditional unions, 50% of the workers
are now casual workers who are not covered by labour agreements and who earn a
fraction of the officially negotiated rate.
With the
onslaught of neo-liberal policies, workers have faced growing constraints
imposed by erstwhile workers’ movements that are legacies of 20th
century capitalism, and are now struggling to build new working class
institutions that must redefine the shape of class conflict in the years to
come. Since the 1980s the assault on the working class has been in full swing,
as capital and the state united in opposition to the representation of existing
unions and the labour protection and welfare laws forged by the labour
movements earlier. To capital, organized labour posed an obstacle to expanding
corporate profits and restoring absolute hegemony in workplace. Over the last 3
decades a resurgent capitalist class conducted a fierce war against labour
unions turning them from a formidable force in major organized industries into
a weak irritant at best. Trade unions’ traditional forms of power – work place
bargaining, regulatory capacity and right to strike– have all been eroded.
The growth of
FDI in manufacturing industries, that traditionally had higher levels of
unionization, has reduced the organizational power of workers. To lure multinational
capital, local state authorities and politicians either ensured that new
industrial enterprise zones were union free, or permitted employers to form
company-dominated unions. In most cases state labour authorities and trade
unions failed to enforce existing labour laws for the vast majority of workers
who were contract labourers. As foreign capital investment in production and
natural resources has grown, and total labour force has expanded, existing
trade unions have lost many members in absolute terms and also declined
relative to the total workforce.
An increasing
concentration of existing trade union members are employed in the public sector
which is more unionized than private sector industry which in turn is more
unionized than private sector services. A rising proportion of trade union
members are employed in managerial or professional occupations. The character
of such unions and the relations between union and members is fundamentally
different from those of unions of manual workers. Also, there are instances of
young and ethnic minority workers not joining these unions in sufficient
numbers.
The expansion of
monopoly capitalism has contributed to the process of neo-corporatism – the
recognition of labour unions and their co-optation by capital and state
institutions that support the preservation and expansion of repressive labour policies.
Labour unions, even those rooted in militant rank-and-file organizations, have
become part of the neoliberal capitalist state through affiliated political
parties. These new unions and parties, which often form part of governing
coalitions, have encouraged foreign monopoly capital investments that severely
exploit the working class. Through absorption into state-sanctioned systems of
representation, collective bargaining, and electoral politics, the original
workers’ movements have been marginalized and disregarded, and are often under
assault.
Unstructured and
often unregulated labour markets that are filled by day labourers, domestic
workers, street peddlers, and food cart operators, temporary labourers and
for-hire drivers, all mainly employed in the informal economy with few legal
rights also reveal the weakness of traditional unions and have forced them to
be solely dependent on non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and advocacy
groups, and on political and electoral advocacy groups to defend their rights.
Campaigns to improve the conditions of fast-food outlet and retail store
workers are pursued primarily by advocacy groups, NGOs and by external union
and community organisers to generate public attention for raising minimum
wages. The large work force in service and commerce has weak ability to
organize unions. It is far more difficult to organize part-time and temporary
service, retail and hospitality workers employed with irregular working hours
and nebulous connection to the workplace than industrial workers who work full
time in factories.
The existing
unions have also been incorporated into the state governing structures through
neo-corporatist forms of institutional recognition of labour representation and
collective bargaining rights that assented to the dominance of the capital and
the state in return for recognition and minimal economic gains for their
members. As industrial investments have expanded throughout the country, new
independent workers’ movements have emerged challenging the hegemony of
capital, state, and union policies that have in many instances relinquished
institutional power for the majority of the working class. Nevertheless, when
workers’ movements are transformed into formal bodies for organized labour,
they are usually only able to represent a small portion of workers, and
encounter significant limitations in extending wage and social protections to
the vast majority of impoverished workers.
The weakening of
existing unions has severely eroded the power of those who could count on
parliamentary agreements to defend working conditions. As new industries have
grown through FDI, labour agreements, which were gained by official strikes and
stoppages, have been seriously undermined. While labour protections established
at independence in 1947 permit workers to organize into unions, since the
institution of neoliberal reforms in 1991 corporations have flouted these laws
with the active support of state and central labour authorities, thwarting the
formation of trade unions unless they are controlled by management. Capital
investment has flowed to the manufacturers and contractors who employ informal
labourers earning a fraction of the wages of full-time permanent workers, with
no job security. But the vast discrepancy in wages between permanent and
contract workers in the rapidly expanding auto sector, rather than dividing
workers, has generated solidarity and a rejection of two-tier labour forces.
Independent unions are forming to represent worker interests in industrial
belts and SEZs.
Traditionally
labour representation in India has formed around political parties. The key
central unions are now affiliated with BJP, Congress, left parties, and
regional political parties. Before the neoliberal reforms of 1991, these
parties bargained with the state and capitalists for their members and
supported trade union centres for wage gains. However, now the unionized
enterprises that represent 6 to 7% of all workers in formal enterprises – and
perhaps even less if casual workers are taken into account – have come under
severe pressure. As Indian labour unions lost political and social power,
insecurity rose among workers. Until the 1990s the labour was managed by state
through a combination of repression and institutionalized bargaining, where
workers’ gains were conditioned by national economies in an era when large
businesses benefited from import substitution and controls. However, these
corporatist, parliamentary and social dialogue based patterns of
labour-management bargaining have now become unacceptable to monopoly capital.
Therefore, power of traditional unions, formed by mostly left political parties
has weakened significantly leading to the rise of autonomous and syndicalist
forms of workers’ organizations directly in factories.
Many people
writing on the decline of labour power assert that the erosion of union
effectiveness can be addressed by devoting union resources to organizing,
policy interventions and alliances with labour-friendly political parties. But
there is little evidence to support this over the last 3 decades. Irrespective
of their claim to left or right, all governments have embraced the neoliberal
policies. As traditional unions contract, they are on the defensive, and must
conform to neoliberal economic policies rather than promoting rank-and-file
unionism. In contrast, vibrant new forms of worker organization have
demonstrated a remarkable capacity for innovation. Matching this has been an
upsurge of workers’’ movements which are consciously inspired by democratic and
rank-and-file unionism.
The capacity of
most existing unions to represent workers has declined in all regions. As these
unions restrict themselves to work within the legalistic boundaries allowed by
monopoly capital and state or organizing some ritualistic and symbolic protests
from time to time, there is a growing tendency for emergence of new unions as
the workers are becoming prone to disregard traditional unions and labour
authorities. Militant workers are establishing assemblies that represent
rank-and-file associations. In some cases, existing unions are becoming
irrelevant to workers even if recognized by the state and affiliated to leading
central unions.
There has been
an established wisdom among investors that these vulnerable and precarious
low-wage workers pose no threat to corporate profit margins, more so as the
established trade unions show no inclination to organize them or fight for
their rights. However, with the beginning of this decade came the first
troubling indications that direct action by electronics, mining, automotive,
textile workers could pose a risk to the national and multinational investors
and brands. In a growing range of industries, worker protests over wages and
work conditions could only be suppressed by repression and violence by armed
state forces and private mercenary gangs working in tandem. The spread of
labour militancy across different industrial zones raises crucial questions
about the revival of a labour movement and the capacity of state and labour
unions to contain dissent in such a way as to restore confidence in capital markets.
Momentous and
unexpected labour uprisings and mass strikes are unfolding today among migrant
workers in urban industrial zones who to varying degrees are challenging the
neoliberal capitalist project. The intensity of these class conflicts in mines
and factories was not envisaged by foreign investors, multinational
corporations, and private contractors – or by many leftist scholars and
activists. The mass uprising by women textile workers of Bangalore which
brought central government to its knees in 2 days and forced it to withdraw the
restriction on withdrawal of workers’ provident fund demonstrated this in a
powerful way. Similarly, large number of non-official union strikes by auto
sector workers across different states from NCR to Tamil Nadu have taken place
in last few years.
Despite not
being represented by organized trade Unions, the workers engage in a range of
tactics and strategies to advance their collective interest both within and
outside existing trade unions and organizational structures. They mobilize
around collective interests to improve their conditions. Despite being
repressed en masse they expose the growing activism among workers that has the
potential for transforming itself into mass movements. As the finance capital
seeks to avoid traditional unions, workers are forming new rank-and-file worker
organizations to defend their collective interests even as compliant state
seeks to repress labour demands by blocking the establishment of worker
collective institutions. The emergence of this contemporary union movement will
not be smooth and organic. The alternative social forces in informal sector
will challenge and subvert the current structures and strategies.
As the Indian
capitalist class and state has strived for more and more capital, they have
also succeeded in removing the fangs of the traditional unions that formed and
consolidated in the era of national liberation struggle and independence. The
forces of organized labour formed in the image of their European predecessors have
adopted policies that demobilized workers in exchange for dispensations to
unions members employed in industrial sectors in key industries. However,
todays’ emerging mobilization of the workers is and must challenge not only the
national and international capitalists, but also the institutional regime
responsible for co-opting unions into a system that protected a small
proportion of the urban working class. The independent rank-and-file workers’
unions have arisen in direct response to the rising FDI aimed at eroding the
power of traditional labour unions. As multinational companies demand strict
subservience and impose draconian conditions on precarious workers, new
class-struggle unions are forming and expanding in India’s industrial belts. The new industrial proletariat is taking
shape as inchoate worker organizations are fulfilling the forestalled functions
of traditional unions. Workers are involved in rank-and-file militancy in three
ways:
Worker
Assemblies – organized in conditions where some or all the workers lack
independent union representation, or where existing union is disengaged from some
or all workers at a plant. Workers form parallel unions that do not have
official recognition and sometimes do not even have a name but reflect the
interests of unorganized workers.
Independent
unions – new independent unions represent workers who have not been absorbed
into traditional unions through corporate arrangements with management. They
form autonomously on a firm-level, local or regional basis.
Pressurizing
traditional unions – workers use different approaches for this. One, raising
direct demand for official status as independent union through labour office
getting a measure of standing and authenticity among workers, or, changing
affiliation to traditional unions that are more responsive to rank-and-file
members, or, in some cases forcing traditional unions to change their approach.
As neoliberal
policies are implemented by Indian government, and multinational companies
demand strict subservience and impose exploitative conditions on precarious
workers, new class struggle unions are emerging and expanding in industrial
belts around New Delhi, Pune, Chennai, Ahmedabad and Bangalore. The insurgency
among auto workers is representative of the expansion of direct struggle by
workers against rapacious domestic and multinational employers and a compliant
state which serves the interest of capitalist class.
The history of workers’
struggles in Maruti Suzuki illustrates the expanding significance of
independent unions in India’s massive manufacturing industries. This has
prompted business and government leaders to stage an offensive against unions
that workers have organized in an attempt to gain improved wages, working
conditions, and democratic labour representation. As private contractors for
international manufacturers seek to restrict trade unions, independent unions
are forming to represent worker interests in industrial belts and export processing
zones.
While the class
conflict between workers and management is expanding in manufacturing
industries, weak central unions are unable to consolidate power on a national
level. If the conditions of industrial workers in export-producing factories
and installations in India are to be improved, they require a major workers’
movement that embraces the aspirations of the young men and women who comprise
the vast majority of the workers. While the traditional labour unions have lost
the capacity to respond to state and monopoly capitalist policies that erode
wages, laboring conditions, health a safety, and human rights of workers –
broadly defined as the ability to work and live in dignity, the rise of
independent unions demonstrates the salience of consolidating the struggles
through a rank-and-file union.
2nd
Jan 2017
No comments:
Post a Comment