Learns From Mistakes of Past Wage Settlements

COSTLY MISTAKES COMMITTED IN THE PAST WAGE SETTLEMENTS

After carefully going through the nitty-gritty of all the settlements in the past, I could pinpoint the areas, where our leaders committed grave errors which resulted in unimaginable losses to our bank staff, vis-à-vis all the other sectors and government departments.

1. After 01-01-1970, we must have got the next settlement with effect from 01-01-1974.  But, the next settlement (3^rd BPS) could be reached only with effect from 01-09-1978, after a gap of 8 years 9 months period.  Thus, as against 2 settlements due during this period, we got only one and lost the other.

1. From 01-11-1987, the validity period of a settlement was increased to 5 years, from the earlier validity period of 4 years.  Due to this reason also, between 01-11-1987 and 31-10-2007 (20 years), we got revision in wages only 4 times, as against 5 times.  This way also, one more wage revision was lost.

1. Until 31-01-2005, our D.A. compensation was not 100% and D.A. was paid as per rates based on different slabs, with the D.A. neutralization ranging from 25% to 100% for each slab.  As a result, the actual D.A. paid became less and at the time of merger of D.A. with the Basic Pay each time, the revised Basic Pay was reduced.  ‘Loss in present D.A. is loss in future Basic Pay’ was the lesson learnt.

1. After 5^th CPC and 6^th CPC, all the calculations and assumptions for subsequent wage revisions of bank staff went haywire and our leaders failed to adopt altogether a new and bold initiative, instead of sticking to the ‘X’ plus something’ method, where ‘X’ was the pre-revised salaries and allowances.  When the Central Pay Commission merged 50% of the D.A. with the old scales and further added 40% to arrive at the new scales for the central government staff, we expected the same spirit, boldness and assertiveness from our negotiating team in 2009.  But, alas, we were let down miserably by our own comrades and the entire banking community was deeply disappointed and anguished.

1. During 2009 and 2010, by attaching too much of importance to second option for pension, we could secure a meagre increase of 13.5% in the 9^th BPS.  Besides, thousands of employees did not receive any arrears and worse still, many had to pay additional amount from their pocket to avail the pension benefit.  This created great uproar and widespread discontentment amongst the senior staff members and those who had already retired without getting any pension.

1. UFBU failed to emphasize that ‘social banking’ and ‘commercial banking’ can never go hand in hand.  Therefore, for undertaking myriad social obligations cast on us, bankers must be suitably compensated by the government and MOF and IBA cannot take shelter under the reasoning that the profitability position of Indian Banks does not permit the managements to pay their staff more than what is being offered now.

1. Further, compared to all other sectors and industries, bank staff are transferred the maximum number of times in their career spanning more than 35 years.

1. If the working hours, leave and holidays of bank staff basing on the ground realities are taken into account, bank staff in fact deserve much more than the salaried class of people from any other part of the society.

1. If the risks and responsibilities are taken as the yardstick, ‘risk allowance’ of not less than 30% of the Basic Pay must be paid to all bank officers.

1. Our leaders must be educated and enlightened on these points, before they discuss them with IBA.  The very objective of my writing this is we shall not repeat the mistakes committed in the past and we must be very clear and focused in our objectives this time.

Date: 01-09-2013                                                      Contributed BY            V Subramanian