|
|
 |
 |
| Sunday, 6 July 2003 |
 |
|
 |
Editorial |  |
| News Business Features Security
|
Please forward your comments to the
Editor, Sunday Observer. E-mail: [email protected] Snail mail : Sunday Observer, 35, D.R.Wijewardana Mawatha, Colombo, Sri Lanka. Telephone : 94 1 429239 / 331181 Fax : 94 1 429230 Balance The doctors in government service struck work and they got their demands or, at least some of them. Neither were they sacked, nor were they threatened with such termination of employment. But when the minor staff of the government medical service struck work on their pay demands, they were threatened with sacking. To many this may seem like simple social class discrimination. That is, those with the social power and the bargaining power can get away with industrial action even if that action results in the deaths or suffering of patients, but those of the poorer classes, lacking that social power, are bluntly resisted and summarily dealt with. The situation confronting the Government, is, however, far more complicated. The Government, like all recent governments, faces the twin challenges of, on the one hand, the continuing struggle for post-colonial economic recovery (called 'development') and, on the other, repairing the economic and social devastation wrought by war. Both have to be done in the context of the rigours of a global economic system that neither allows for economic indulgence and laxity nor all that easily provides for 'development' assistance. Having to make do with limited resources while observing the requirements of structural adjustment and other economic policy strictures, all in the face of the compelling needs of poverty, unemployment and frustrated social aspirations, it is nigh impossible for the Government to cleanly and evenly adjudicate on every industrial action it faces. On occasion it is compelled to relent to the pressure of employee power blocs that wield hefty bargaining power as that of the government service doctors - that is, their power over the lives of patients. But this does not mean that that pressure by the doctors is fair or that, in relation to the larger state services employment structure or the availability of State funds, their demands are reasonable or viable. In other words, if the Government, given its capacities and priorities, could avoid meeting all the doctors' demands, it would. Thus, when employee power blocs that lack the same punch attempt to apply pressure through industrial action, the Government does not feel the same compulsion to relent as with the doctors. Therefore, the minor hospital employees faced stern action. In this, the Government is sending out a necessary signal indicating that simply because certain sections are able to use their excessive bargaining power to win demands, this does not mean that everyone can hope to do so. That would result in more economic chaos than there is already. Not all employee sectors with bargaining power are as well off as are the middle class doctors. The plantation labour, for example, does wield some collective bargaining power and has used this effectively. But there are many sectors that are both very poor and also lack bargaining or countervailing power. This is where the Government must exercise caution to ensure that this uneven treatment does not result in the poorer, weaker sections of labour being completely ignored or marginalised or, that their industrial actions are summarily suppressed. In the case of the minor hospital staff, any impression that their industrial action was simply suppressed is wrong. The Health Ministry, while issuing the threat of termination, has proceeded to negotiate with the unions and arrive at a compromise settlement. This openness to the needs of labour is crucial for social stability. The Government must keep in mind that the cry of labour must be heard and responded to. It has to maintain that delicate balance between economic viability and social need. |
|
News | Business | Features
| Editorial | Security Produced by Lake House |
