Frustration is our own creation!

Frustration is our own creation!--- C ook ntributed by Sri J. N. Shukla , Dena Bank
-------------------------------------------------

Nobody is happy, whether officers, clerks or subordinates, though they are getting salaries, allowances and other service conditions, obviously of their 'choice', since the same were agreed upon after protracted discussions by their representative Unions. It were neither imposed coersively nor unilaterally or perforce either by management or by govt.

The Unions, who signed the Settlements/ Understandings, acclaimed to have bargained the best, rated their settlements as 'landmark', 'historical.' Not only this, from officers to subordinates, they applauded the settlement and cheered their leaders.

 The term of current settlement expired on 31.10.2017 and much before this, say from 2016, the dissents started creeping in and by 2017, nothing was left to ridicule the settlements, leaders & Unions. Last settlement was signed in May, 2015 and just within a very short duration it became very sour and tasteless.

It never happened in past. Yes, one can understand that it is 'time' that shape or deshape the things, anything can't be held relevant for all the time & context. That's why, what we agree, appreciate and hold in high regard today that goes stale over time and necessitates the review. All settlements were relevant, when they were signed, but held irrelevant by expiry, thus replaced by the new one.

But, here the situation is something different. People are very much instigated & provoked. They are influenced to believe in untrue 'thesis' that they are not adequately compensated and to certify they are shown as to what government employees are getting. This situation is attributed as brought in by Unions and leaders.

Today, if you conduct a survey as to what the officers or the workmen do want- negotiated settlement or Pay Commission type mechanism to stitch salary and service conditions- result may be shocking. It may be brute majority against negotiated settlement. It speaks the abundance of ignorance with regard to over all good to banking community.

People are unaware or had forgotten the days, when there was no bilateralism. Present day officers or employees haven't seen or experienced the ordeals of Courts, Tribunals, Committees, Commissions processes. Leave it, they even seem to be ignorant of the Laws/Acts under which they are governed. By their free will and open mind, just they fit themselves into 'government servant' slots, whether their so thinking is legitimate or illegitimate.

Really, do they fit into govt servant? Simple answer is: no, not at all. They are seem to be pleading themselves as govt employee for simple reason that they work in govt undertaking Banks. How far this plea is correct? Look to fact,  Govt is majority owner and not sole owner of PSBs. Given the level of equity the govt  holds, it has controlling rights. Further, Banks are Banking companies registered under Banking Regulations Act. Employees are governed by the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. The Officers Service Rules are made as per power vested to Banks under Bank Nationalization and Transfer of Undertakings Acts, 1970/80. So, bank employees and officers are not govt employees, but it doesn't bar them to get even better wages & service conditions, which they had in fact at the time of nationalization.

Yes, they can demand pay parity with their government counter part, even better, looking to job of high risk & responsibilities. There are many other Public Sector Undertakings on better salary conditions. That too can be in consideration. Since Banks are classified under financial sector,  so far, Bank Unions acclaimed themselves to be trend setter in wage & service matters for rest of Financial Sector, so there is nothing to compare in Financial Sector.

Here in Banking, 'affordability', in other words 'paying capacity' form the basis of salary. First the load is decided. Banking is prone to unpredictable risk, so the profitability is never stable. Uneconomical costing of products & services and social obligations etc are the hurdles to realise remunerative returns on products & services. It impacts operational viabilities. As such, the criteria of affordibility on the basis of net profits is not right and cant be taken as determinator. If this is determinator, then bank employees have no claim as such to have wage revision, since today almost all banks have been running in red.

Periodical wage increase and improvement in service conditions is universally accepted phenomenon, across organized or unorganized sectors be it Public, Private, Government sector. Wages factor in Profits or losses, but profits or losses doesn't factor in wages. Here in banking it is just reverse. Profits are made a factor in wage increase. Profits can be a factor in determination of bonuses, incentives, rewards, exgratias, but for sure not wages. Fix the wages, take work; earn profits or incur losses is later course. Therefore, the base of affordibility or paying capacity should be dismantled. It is derrogatory.

Second point is: how to distribute the increase, is very serious issue. In fact it is due to irrational distribution of increase that caused very serious frustrations among banking fraternity. Universally accepted practice is to reduce disparity among cadres. Low paid are given relatively better rise. First point is to ensure living wage at bottom side. Subordinate is suppose to get better increase than the clerks and so the clerks better than officers. A new subordinate need to get sustainable wage and in his scale lower stages should get more increase than at later stages. Similarly, in clerical cadre, better increase in lower stages was eminent. In officers bottom scale is Scale-1. It was to be better loaded to ensure sustainable wage in beginning. There should been increase in scales, stages from down to up in diminishing trend. As a result of present system starting pay is inadequate. Scale 1,2,3 are given less increase than 4 onward. Further, higher stages were more loaded than the bottom side.

Net result is young recruits in all cadres are meagerly paid. A Special Assistant with all stagnation increments might be getting Rs.80000 pm, but what a new clerk gets. Scale 1,2,3,4, 5 are redundant. Scale 1&2 should have been merged with 3, so 4 in 5. Looking to promotions in every 3/4 years, what are the relevance to such multiple compartments. Who reaches all stages in these scales? Is it not a farce situation? But, it is a harsh reality in our system.

Faulty distribution of increase is major cause of discontentment. Unions have been adopting different yardsticks to distributions. Had there not been faulty increase distributions and prudential yardstick followed, I am sure, things could have been different. Look to area of discontentment. It is high in young recruits up to 10 years of service in all cadres plus scale 1,2,3 of officers. With the increase in length of service, promotions or upgrading discontentment diminishes. Here, as against lowers, highers have been disproportionately compensated, that caused inequillibrium at all level. It was in fact unprincipled distribution, where people in high pay bands were more given, while the need was to give more to lower grades & at bottom of scales. Now, it has reached to unbridgeable level. Frustration is here as  our own creation.