Discourse on labour welfare

Published Sep 18, 2012 12:05am

FOR many amongst us, the deaths of some 300 workers caused by factory fires in Karachi and Lahore were the outcome of regulatory failure on part of various government departments, and of criminal complicity and negligence by the factory owners.

At one level, this particular way of looking at things is simply the logical outcome of a circumscribed worldview.

If labour inspectors were honest, we’d have better working conditions. If factory owners were less greedy, they’d actually make an effort to ensure worker safety. If politicians were pro-people, they’d hold negligent bureaucrats accountable. If everyone did their job, as they’re supposed to, as the law asks of them, tragedies like the ones in Lahore and Karachi would be completely avoidable.

The common strand running through all this post-disaster talk is how certain agents, i.e. factory owners, government officials, and politicians, dropped the ball at some stage.

Nobody, and I apologise for overlooking those who are, is talking about structural compulsions that not only make such tragedies inevitable, but also continue to push us towards greater levels of urban oppression.

The fact that the state failed to do its job is hardly surprising. The state fails in some of its designated tasks every day, in multiple domains, at multiple levels.

It fails every time someone dies of a water-borne disease; it fails every time a school-aged child ends up working at a mechanic’s shop; it fails every time a bomb explodes in a crowded market; it fails when students of the Government Girls Primary School, mauza Islampura, Deepalpur, sit on the muddy ground for their lessons because the roof of their classroom collapsed five years ago; and yes, it failed horribly when worker safety regulations were completely sidestepped by the owners of Ali Enterprises.

The thing is that discourse centred on state negligence and corrupt practices is automatically geared to miss out on other, equally important facets of such events.

For example, based on recent reports, it turns out none of the employees of the Karachi factory had employment letters, and according to one government official, the factory wasn’t even registered with the labour department.

Essentially, this means that the labour was informally contracted, probably through a parasitical jobber, and that the value of their work was being determined by the whims and constraints of the proprietors.

Given how sub-contracted garment producers have to compete with other third world countries in the international production chain, the primary consideration for any domestic capitalist would be to reduce costs to the bare minimum.

There are two ways of doing it: 1) reduce your own profit margin, or 2) do away with first-world luxuries like minimum wagestandards, safety and health regulations, and humane working hours.

Needless to say, we all know how that story turns out.

Basically, we’re left with a context where regulation failure is an empirically provable fact, where greed and profit motive will trump any sense of compassion, and where a stagnant and non-competitive economy will push us towards greater informalisation.

The question of worker safety then becomes awkward. The question then cannot be answered by the language of ‘reform’ and ‘accountability’. The question then cannot be addressed through passionate appeals to factory owners, expedient state officials, and venal political party leaders.

If history is anything to go by, this question has been, and will only be answered by placing the worker at the centre of the political process. That is, without unionisation, without a representative form of labour politics, without organisational forums that can actually lobby for worker rights, working conditions in factories and sweatshops will never improve.

Many, especially those of the urban upper-middle class disposition, will scoff at this suggestion. Worker politics is a relic of the past, some would say. Others would argue that it creates barriers to ‘progress’ and ‘development’ and that unionisation is a nuisance (look at the railways) which prevents privatisation, and robs taxpaying citizens of efficient services.

Such dismissive reactions highlight a deep-seated belief that our existing political and economic processes can actually produce gains for everyone after some basic ‘tweaking’. What many miss out is that without collective action, in this case by urban labour, the existing incentive structure for business-owners, the state, and for political party leaders, is not geared towards worker welfare.

Recent studies by Lakshmi Iyer at Harvard, and by Ali Cheema at LUMS, show that incidence of public goods provision is significantly higher in areas where locals engage with the political process, and where there is a greater degree of collective action. Without taking too much liberty, one can easily see the inherent value of these studies for worker-related issues. If urban labour is organised in the shape of representative unions, which have traction in the mainstream political process, an incentive structure that places working class wellbeing as its end-goal can actually be created.

As far as I see it, and I could be completely mistaken here, our discourse on wages, safety, regulation, and working environments can go in two largely divergent directions.

We can either actively talk and work towards creating representative platforms that prioritise the welfare of hundreds of thousands of people, most of them like those who perished in the two fires, or we can sit back and pray that state officials, politicians, and factory owners magically grow a conscience and reform an inherently failing system.

The writer is a freelance columnist based in Islamabad.

umairjaved87@gmail.com Twitter: @umairjav


Do you have information you wish to share with Dawn.com? You can email our News Desk to share news tips, reports and general feedback. You can also email the Blog Desk if you have an opinion or narrative to share, or reach out to the Special Projects Desk to send us your Photos, or Videos.

More From This Section

Balochistan has a road map

However sound a proposed development strategy for Balochistan may seem, the pitfalls cannot be ignored.

Rage and grief

The fragile unity shown at the conference will need to be held on to through a series of gruelling tests.

Comments (1) Closed




Haider
Sep 18, 2012 09:10am
Brilliant piece. 'Place the worker at the centre of the political process'. You've hit the nail on its head. The recent incidents show how the global neo-liberal economic regime in which our stagnant economy is embedded is a death spell for the working classes. Since the 1980s, the capitalist elite in Pakistan has become very strong vis a vis the working classes, and has effectively hijacked the discourse on labor rights. Deep structural flaws are conveniently ignored in public debate as well as policy making. Consequently, superficial and utopian remedies are suggested which place the onus of change on the factory owners, state officials and upper class politicians while the worker is seen as a passive subject of their actions and decisions. Effective and organized political struggle, where the worker will be the agent of change, is the only way for the working classes to earn their rights back. With the working classes so fragmented (physically, politically, ideologically), it is difficult to see how this will happen any time soon. It come to me as no surprise that despite the 'return of democracy' and a full tenure of government by the PPP (the party which once championed the cause of the working classes) led coalition, no significant progress has been made towards the empowerment of the workers. Unless the working classes organize and assert their political strength, incidents like Baldia will continue to happen.