10th Bipartite Settlement Cause Injustice TO Seniors In Banks

One of bank staff has  rightly pointed out the anomalies and shortcomings of wage revision. I am very much happy that  someone has at least taken care of seniors. It is really sad that seniors for none of their fault are denied even annual increment. I have written many  times in the past too that seniors are doing all important jobs but not getting promotion in time only due to inadequate vacancies in higher scale or due to juniors getting promotion based on flattery or bribery and in some case on merit too. There is no justification in stopping their annual increment .

As such At least annual increment must be granted to all seniors without putting any brakes in the name of stagnation for three years or two years. Injustice with seniors is huge and continuing since long and it is one of many key reasons that banks are growing sickness and there is continuous rise in bad debts.

 

Due to stagnation , many clerks are getting higher or equal salary with officers in equal span of time. I have submitted this important  letter in my blogging site and hope many readers will know the fact of anomalies and shortcomings of 10th Bipartite Settlement.

 

 I however do not believe that leaders will do any help . I submit below the link of the same and hope you will forward to all friends and groups and if possible to MOF , IBA and all trade union leaders .

with regards

yours

Danendra Jain

http://importantbankingnews2.blogspot.in/2015/06/anomalies-and-shortcomings-of-10th.html

 

To:              The General Secretary, AIBEA

CWCs to:    The Convenor, UFBU; The General Secretary, AIDBECC

Through:  The General Secretary, Gujarat Bank Workers' Union

(with advance copies to the concerned)

Respected Comrade,

Sub.: Anomalies/Major Shortcomings of 10th BPS

----------------------------------------------------------------

While complimenting the leadership of AIBEA/UFBU for concluding the 10th BPS, I would like to draw your kind attention to the following anomalies/major shortcomings that have been noticed by me.

ANOMALIES::

1. It was agreed by the parties in the very beginning that the settlement would be effective from the due date i.e. 1st November, 2012. However, in sheer disregard to this commitment, the 8th Stagnation Increment has been made effective from the month of signing the final settlement i.e. 1st May, 2015 which causes injustice to the seniors. It might be alright not to give retrospective effect to petty things like HA, OT, etc., but at least the payslip components, especially basic (with all kinds of Pay), DA, HRA, must have retrospective effect as in the past and especially when it was the commitment of IBA.

2. Upon rescheduling of the sixth stagnation increment, it was incumbent to provide for rescheduling of the stagnation increments of those employees who have already exhausted sixth/seventh stagnation increment/s with reference to their date of receiving the fifth stagnation increment, of course, with the stipulation that the effect be given not earlier from the date of settlement (Similar provisions were made in the past settlements whenever the frequencies of the stagnation increments had changed)

3. While renaming the basic special allowances as "Pay" in the past, it was the intention of the parties to treat them as Basic Pay for all purposes. However, the new Special Allowance introduced in this settlement does not seem to be applied on Special Pay, FPP, PQP which causes injustice to those drawing these pay. It is quite unfair that the part of salary which is even considered for superannuation benefits is not considered for computing the new Special Allowance which is fixed in percentage terms with relation to the Basic Pay. 

4. The reclassification of areas for the purpose of HRA has caused great injustice to the employees living in cities with population of 5-12 lacs. Under the guise of granting higher HRA to employees of rural/semi-urban areas, in fact, the HRA share of employees of cities with 5-12 lacs population has been reduced, which is evident from the meagre percentage of 7.5 made applicable to them. Even the gap in percentage between the cities with population of 12-45 lacs and above 45 lacs is 1 % whereas the gap between 0-12 lacs and 12-45 lacs is 1.5%. This is quite unjust and unfair to the huge mass of employees living in middle class cities.

5. While the unions were rightly against introduction of mediclaim in the beginning, they moderated their stance by agreeing with IBA with the condition of keeping due safeguards to protect the employees from any adverse/inferior conditions. However, I have found some provisions of the agreed medical insurance scheme as being inferior to the existing provisions for the employees, some of which are listed hereunder:

    A. Earlier it was sufficient that the patient got admission as an indoor patient in a hospital. Now, barring certain exclusions, the requirement of hospitalization of minimum 24 hours has been imposed.  

    

    B. The definition of eligible hospitals provided in the scheme is also against the spirit of this welfare measure since the employee/patients would be running after checking the technicalities instead of getting the patient treated immediately! It is rubbish to require that the hospital must have an operation theatre (when the hospitalization is not for surgery) and that it must have minimum 10/15 beds and the like.  It must be sufficient that the hospital is a recognized one and has provision for indoor treatment, as hitherto.

    

    C. The insurance companies providing mediclaim insist on original case papers/reports/prescriptions besides original bills/receipts which is quite unfair and I had already suggested that only the bills/receipts in original must be sufficient with photocopies of prescriptions/case papers/reports since they form the important medical record of the patients and are required for further follow up.(And this is what has been followed by most banks at present) However, this aspect has not been clarified in the scheme which is very much necessary since the insurance companies are not likely to entertain the claim without all original papers. 

MAJOR SHORTCOMINGS::

It seems that while finalizing the settlement, the unions have not given a re-look at the Charter of Demands. It is alright that the whole charter of demands can not be satisfied, but at least the fundamental points seeking to correct the past injustice must have been resolved.  I quote only a couple of such shortcomings with regard to the Charter of Demands:-

1. It was stated in the Charter of Demands that the number of stagnation increments would be without any ceiling. However, we have been able to get only one addition to the stagnation increments (and that too at a prospective date!). Complete stagnation in the same scale must have been avoided at any cost as it, interalia, nullifies to a large extent the benefit of advance increments for qualifications received by those with longer years of service. This is one more blow to the seniors and qualified employees in this settlement. Avoiding stagnation was rightly taken as an important issue in the Charter of Demands but has been ignored while finalizing the settlement.

2. Another just item of the Charter of Demands which was in fact required to have been achieved much earlier was of revision in PQP/EQP by making it equal to the first stage increment has also been given a miss. (As a matter of fact, the just thing was to extend the scale by the number of advance increments received by an employee i.e. PQP as equivalent to the last stage increment) At least, there is no justification in keeping the qualification pay lower than in SBI as it is granted for the same qualification/s without any relation to the nature of work/duties.

May I request you to take up the above just issues with IBA and modify the settlement accordingly in the overall interest of justice and fairness? The adequacy of quantum rise in the settlement may be a subject of differences, but at least the aspects of justice, fairness, non-discrimination and maintenance of internal and external relativity (as stated in the Charter of Demands) must have taken precedence over other issues. These seem to have been ignored especially to the detriment of seniors in this settlement.

With regards,

-Hiren Bhatelia

(Member: GBW Union, affiliated to AIBEA;

Staff Representative: Dena Bank, Grain Market Branch,Jjamnagar)

10th BPS is worse than 9th BPS?

 Not only the Senior Bankers retiring between 01/11/12 & 30/11/17 even young bankers are going to lose heavily?

 Even a leader having least experience knows very well that major % of pay hike of 15% should have been added to Basic Pay. The senior leaders of AIBOC including the General Secretaries of all its affiliates do not know the importance of Basic Pay? The Central Govt. Employees are demanding immediate merger of 100% DA to BP, why? 

The day one since the Charter of Demand was submitted by the joint forum of all the four officers unions, their leaders started communicating that 10th BPS would become the historical wage settlement for Bank Officers. But I am here under giving a small example which will prove 10th BPS is worse than 9th BPS;-

 As per 8th BPS - initial BP of scale I officer - Rs.10000/- which was increased to Rs.14500/- as per 9th BPS.
9th BPS was effective from 01/11/2007. BP + DA as per 8th BPS
As on 01/11/07 10000 + 33300 (DA 33.3%) =13300
BP +DA as per 9th BPS
As on 01/11/07 14500 + 1044(DA 7.20%) =15544

Net increase = Rs 2244/- which was 16.87%
10th BPS is effective from 01/11/2012 & our great leaders say that introduction of special allowance is the great achievement;- BP + DA as per 9th BPS
As on 01/11/12 14500+11092(DA76.5%)=25592
BP+DA+ SPL ALLOWANCE+ DA as per 10th BPS
As on 01/11/12 23700+2583(DA10.90%) +1836+200=28319

Net increase after adding special allowance & DA thereon= Rs.2727 which is only 10.65%
(Note: there was also increase in HRA & other allowances in 9th BPS like 10th BPS, for comparison only main factors such as BP, DA, newly introduced spl allowance & DA thereon have been taken)

  The above comparison confirms the following;-

 1. Net increase is only 10.65% on account of 10th BPS even after adding special allowance & DA thereon whereas net increase on account of 9th BPS was 16.87%.
2. In general, any allowance which attracts DA also attracts PF on it. But it is first time in history that a new allowance “special allowance” has been introduced which will carry DA on it but no PF will be deducted on it.
3. Actually this new component “special allowance” was to be added to BP but the motive of the IBA was not to add it to BP.
4. Due to non addition of this component to BP or non- considering it part & parcel of BP, the bankers will lose as under;-

 a. This component plus DA thereon will not be included while arriving superannuation benefits such as pension, gratuity etc, thus the bankers retiring between 01/11/12 to 31/10/17 will get lesser pension & lesser gratuity. Since maximum gratuity is Rs.10 lacs, there will not be any impact on gratuity payable to the retiring officers or clerks, but the retiring sub-staff will get lesser gratuity.
b. The young bankers who joined on or after 01/04/2010 are covered by a Defined Contributory Pension Scheme, where the officer will contribute 10% of Pay plus Dearness Allowance and the bank will make a matching contribution. Due to non deduction of PF on special allowance plus DA thereon, the young bankers would also lose the equivalent amount of PF which is to be contributed by the Bank. Thus in long term, the young bankers will lose heavily.
c. If the said component of special allowance has been added to BP, the each banker gets more HRA.
d. In near future, the bankers retiring on or after 01/11/17 will lose heavily on account of non inclusion of this component to their superannuation benefits.
Friends, the Central Government employees are demanding immediate merger of 100% DA to their BP because they know very well that it will be more beneficial to the working as well as the retirees. More BP means more HRA, More BP means more PF component, More BP means more pension component, More BP means more superannuation benefits. The allowances generally vary from places to places where the employees work whereas BP plus DA thereon remains same irrespective of place of posting. If any employee dies during services or opts for pre retirement on medical grounds, only Basic Pay and allowances which attract PF on it are taken into account to arrive his terminal benefits such as pension & gratuity etc. If any employee or the officer avails the bank quarter facility, he is not eligible for getting HRA. This is reason that proven trade union leaders always demand for more increase in BP. But our so called efficient leaders are thinking that they have got historical achievement by introducing new component special allowance.  

 One of AIBOC top leader who used to give very favorite speech on more increase of BP component writes the following in a letter addressed to his members;-
“It is clarified that the gross pension has seen the sizeable increase during the post wage settlement. In view of the 60% merger of the DA with basic now in this wage settlement, there is a sizeable increase in the incremental commutation ranging anywhere between additional Rs 4.00 to Rs.5.00 lacs, and there may be a reduction in net pension after the additional commutation amount, but there is no decline in gross pension.

To facilitate the retirees to chose as per item no 8 of the joint note a “note” is provided which goes as follows:

Note: Officers in service of the Banks as on 1st November 2012 and who have retired thereafter but before 25th May 2015 and who had opted for commutation of pension will have an option not to claim incremental commutation on revised basic pension.”

The said top AIBOC leader writes that there is sizable increase in pension. The following calculation will justify his statement;-

Pension of the officer whose last drawn BP as per 9th BPS was Rs.33300/-;-
Basic pay for pension as per 9th BPS= 16650.00
Basic pay for pension after computation of Rs.5550= 11100.00
DA @110.70 = 18431.00
Total pension after computation = 29531.00
Total pension before computation = 35081.00

Basic pay as per 10th BPS = 54410.00
Basic pay for pension as per 10th BPS=27205.00
BP for pension after computation of Rs.9068= 18837.00
DA @33.70 =9168.00
Total pension after computation = 28005.00
Total pension before computation = 36373.00

 Net increase in pension before computation = 1292.00 (increase is 3.68% overall)
Net decrease in pension after computation = 1526.00 ( decrease is 5.16%) 

Top AIBOC leader states that increase of 3.68% in pension before computation against 15% hike on pay slip is sizable increase in pension. If 3.68% increase is a sizeable figure, we bankers should feel very sorry on such kind of statement.

AIBOC leadership is totally failure and they have cheated their own membership in one & another way by surrendering themselves in the hands of IBA team. The retiree bankers as well as the senior bankers who are going to retire in near future always took actively participated in all the agitation programmes for last more than 35-40 years and it was their sacrifices that all the strikes remained successfully and all previous fights were won successfully by the bankers.

It is very sorry to mention that the leadership signed joint note2 where IBA writes remarks such as “ any demands of retirees can be examined only as a welfare measure as contractual relationship does not exist between banks and retirees”. 

 Our leadership has simply accepted these kinds of remarks without even recording their views on it. The pension payable to any employee is earned by rendering long & efficient services. Thus pension is a fundamental & constitutional right of a retiree. But our leadership as well as IBA team has made the attempt to deprive the retirees from their fundamental & constitutional rights. In 9th BPS, 2nd option of pension was also extended to the past retirees also because the contractual relationship exists between the banks & the retirees.

Sri Ramchandran, Former GM, BOB rightly writes in his letter dt.28/5/2015 addressed to the Secretary, Department of Financial Services, Ministry of Finance, N Delhi as follows;-

“Therefore to term the Pension and pension related issues as “ welfare measure” is not out of ignorance of IBA but a deliberate attempt to mislead the retiree which has been accepted by our great netas willingly.”

Friends, if we analyze the entire story from day when the Charter of Demand was submitted till date of signing of joint note, it may be observed that our leadership did not handle the entire episode in planned manner and they simply signed MOU on 22th Feb 2015 without proper analyzing it and sold the poor bankers before IBA. The bankers were expecting the said wage revision as historical wage revision with hope to compete with 7th pay commission but we did not even make achievements equal to 6th pay commission due to our failure leadership. Even 25% hike on pay slip was not enough, but our leadership agreed for 15% hike. Now time has come to unite and realize the leadership for their failure.

Pension Payment Is Not Charity

http://importantbankingnews2.blogspot.in/2015/05/pension-is-welfare-measure-reactions-of.html