The Union government had introduced, during the height of the Covid pandemic, a new set of labour laws. This had taken place without any consultation with workers’ unions. Moreover, the bill was passed at a time when the Opposition had walked out of Parliament. Hence, there was no discussion about possible changes to the bill in Parliament as well. This clearly indicated an unusual haste on the part of the Union government to make into law changes mandated by labour codes that would affect a large number of people. The stated reason for the set of four labour codes was the need to rationalise and integrate an enormous number of separate laws, some of which were pretty old and appeared archaic. The four codes pertain to wages, industrial relations, social security, and occupational safety, health, and working conditions. The Centre has been working with state governments to draft a harmonious set of rules. This is necessary since the subject of labour is on the Concurrent List. The target is to make effective the new rules starting from the financial year, 2025-26.

But workers and trade unions have been extremely critical of this development. The new laws are perceived to be pro-employer, pro-corporate entities, and against workers’ interests. Eleven Central trade unions — the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh’s trade union arm was not among these — met recently and agreed to observe a nationwide strike in May. The new set of rules is supposed to enhance the ease of doing business. This has been interpreted by workers’ unions as being anti-labour. They have pointed out many instances where the new rules could go against the interests of workers in an unfair way. For instance, the new codes, if implemented, would result in a distinct dilution of power for trade unions, especially their bargaining strength vis-à-vis employers. It would, inter alia, imply erosion of job security, deterioration of working conditions, make hiring and firing much easier for employers, and open up the possibility of lengthening daily working hours up to 12.

The majority of workers are employed in the informal sector in this country. There is no clarity on how these labour codes would protect their interests and improve their benefits. The Union government might have a point in claiming that workers’ rights make the flexibility that is necessary for labour markets almost impossible to achieve. History, however, shows that nations that did well economically to make labour markets flexible by allowing greater power to employers had also simultaneously created a strong, comprehensive, inclusive, fiscally-funded social safety net that was perceived as insurance by workers. This perception is unfortunately not present in India today.